dosbox_attach

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description's added value is describing the stateful attach behavior and the goal of locating the game's data segment. It does not explain deeper behavioral consequences, such as what becomes attached or how this affects later memory operations, but it is not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the useful session-discovery hint included second. It contains no filler or repeated schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the key action and pid discovery, but the profile parameter is left unexplained and the exact state changed by attaching is not stated. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values, but the gaps around profile and attach semantics keep this from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema gives a clear description for pid, and the description usefully enriches it by pointing to dosbox_sessions as the way to find candidate pids. However, the profile parameter has no description in the schema and is not explained anywhere in the tool description, leaving its semantics unclear. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but only partially does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: attach to a running DOSBox-X process by process ID and locate the game's data segment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dosbox_launch and dosbox_sessions by focusing on an already-running process and by identifying a concrete resource (the game data segment).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context that the target must already be running and explicitly tells the agent to use dosbox_sessions to find candidate process IDs. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.