dosbox_profiles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by explaining what a profile represents and how the returned symbols integrate with other tools, without contradicting the read-only hint.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the action, the profile concept, and the call-first guidance. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's read-only purpose, the kind of data returned, and the key integration contract (symbols usable anywhere offsets are accepted). It does not spell out null/omitted behavior or unknown-profile handling, but an output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that the gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It implies the optional 'profile' selects one game profile and exposes its named offsets, but it never explicitly states what happens when the parameter is omitted or null, or that 'profile' expects a profile name from the returned list.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('game profiles', 'named memory offsets'), and explains what a profile describes. This clearly separates it from the mutation and session-oriented sibling tools and makes its role as a discovery tool unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to call this tool first and notes that the returned symbol names can be reused anywhere an offset is accepted. It gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative tool.

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