dosbox_capture_screen

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing writes to multiple files, vram vs window behavior, the desktop-visible resize effect, guest slowdown cost, and the auto source's confirmation fallback. This substantially enriches the sparse readOnly/destructive hints without contradicting them.

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 wording is dense but every sentence earns its place; the most important action is front-loaded, and the source-mode explanation is directly tied to real behavioral tradeoffs. Minor awkwardness around 'with with_segment' does not undermine actual clarity.

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 is complete for frame capture, source selection, output artifacts, and side effects, and an output schema exists for return values. It could be even more complete with an explicit note about when the optional pid would be needed and how capture differs from segment-only dumping, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema, especially for source, where it explains exactly what each enum value means and how auto avoids saving incorrect data. It also clarifies with_segment and output naming. It does not explain pid, but that is optional and less central.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Capture the current frame exactly and save it'), identifies the resource (the current frame), and lists the concrete output artifacts. The mention of a replayable fixture makes the tool's role distinct from view-only or memory-read tools.

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 strong within-tool source guidance: when to use vram, window, or auto. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings such as dosbox_view_screen or dosbox_record, so an agent must infer the boundary between capturing a saveable frame and other observation workflows.

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