dosbox_quit

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the critical behavioral detail that the guest is not prompted to save anything first, which is essential for an agent to evaluate risk. It also clarifies the forced relationship — that by default only server-launched sessions can be killed, and force is needed for attached sessions. These details go well beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 short, purposeful sentences cover the core action, the condition for force, and the critical consequence about unsaved guest state. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool is a simple, parameter-light operation with a clear safety profile; the description covers the destructive action, the force/ownership policy, and the unsaved-data consequence. Given the output schema exists and the input schema already documents both parameters, nothing else is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 both pid with a clear description and force with a clear description, achieving full schema coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the force behavior in terms of sessions the server merely attached to, h but it adds no extra pid nuances. Given the schema's high coverage, a score above baseline is still justified.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource action, 'Close a DOSBox-X session,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like launch, attach, and emulator_command. The additional nuance about launched vs. attached sessions further disambiguates its operational scope.

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 clear operational context: the default applies to sessions the server launched, and the condition for using force is described directly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the warning that the guest will not be asked to save implicitly tells agents to ensure saving happens elsewhere.

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