dosbox_launch

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that a successful call means the guest is genuinely up and drivable, and that on Linux isolated=true runs on Xvfb and avoids stealing keystrokes. It also explains the return value role and startup waiting behavior, providing valuable behavioral context.

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 a few sentences long but every sentence contributes practical information. The most important action and output are front-loaded, followed by config guidance and the isolated-mode caveat. It is slightly long but justified by the tool's launch complexity.

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 explains the key behavioral outcome, return value, and a platform-specific nuance. With 6 parameters and an output schema present, the schema covers most parameter details and the description fills in the operational context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to successfully use and interpret the result, though it does not dive into all parameter edge cases.

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 description coverage is high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the config's [autoexec] section controls execution and that AUTOTYPE is the reliable path past intro screens, which clarifies the primary parameter's use. It also reinforces isolated behavior, giving it above-baseline value.

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 tool starts DOSBox-X with a config file and attaches to it, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by explaining that the returned process ID is the identifier other tools take, which positions it distinctly among the sibling toolset.

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 establishes when to use this tool: to launch and attach to a DOSBox-X session. It provides practical context such as the [autoexec] section and AUTOTYPE line for intro screens, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like dosbox_attach or dosbox_profiles. This is strong contextual guidance, but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use cases.

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