dosbox_dump_segment

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

Given readOnlyHint and openWorldHint are already present, the description adds useful behavioral detail: it always dumps the full 64 KiB segment, captures the state at one instant, defaults to the profile's data segment, and treats segment=0x1234 as the marker-capture mechanism. It does not describe overwrite/path-creation behavior, but it does not contradict the read-only annotation because it reads guest memory and writes an output file.

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?

Two sentences carry the full behavioral contract: the primary operation first, then the default segment behavior and special marker use. Every clause contributes semantics, so it is concise without being vague.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers the size, snapshot semantics, default segment, arbitrary segment values, and marker use. The main gap is pid, which the agent must infer refers to the target session/profile.

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 already documents path and segment, and the description adds useful segment semantics by explaining that segment=0x1234 targets any guest segment and is used for capturing a marker. The pid parameter remains undocumented in both the schema description and the tool description, keeping this from a perfect score.

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 names the operation precisely: 'Write a whole 64 KiB guest segment to a file' as a one-instant snapshot. This clearly distinguishes it from interactive memory tools like dosbox_read_memory or dosbox_write_memory by emphasizing the whole-segment file output and its analysis/fixture purpose.

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?

It provides concrete usage contexts: 'for later analysis or as a test fixture' and 'how the marker for a new profile is captured.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use is easy to infer from the wording.

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