dosbox_find_guest

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral depth: it locates guest physical zero from the BIOS data area, walks the DOS memory chain, and reports every loaded program with segment and source path. Nothing about the description contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 sentences, purpose-first, and the key output (segments, paths) is front-loaded. However, it repeats the the same idea twice: 'with no profile and no prior knowledge' and 'a game nobody has described yet', plus the closing sentence adds useful context but could be trimmed.

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?

There is an output schema so return values are covered, and the description explains what to do with the results (read/search memory and seed the profile). However, it is silent about how the target emulator process is selected via pid and what happens when pid is omitted, and it does not mention the likely prerequisite of an existing launched/attached process.

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 single `pid` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never explains what pid means, how to select the emulator process, or what happens when it is null. The phrase 'inside an emulator process' indirectly suggests pid is the OS process ID, but the agent is left to infer an important prerequisite in order to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb + resource: find the DOS guest in an emulator process and report what is loaded in it. It further defines the output as loaded programs, load segments, and paths, and explicitly marks it as the entry point for games with no profile or prior knowledge, which differentiates it from the profile/session/launch tools in the sibling list.

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 gives a clear when-to-use scenario: a game nobody has described yet, with no profile and no prior knowledge, and says this is the way in. It also explains how the output feeds dosbox_read_memory, dosbox_search_memory, and profile creation. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this one.

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