dosbox_read_trace

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the non-mutating nature. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by disclosing that only the most recent hit is visible and that a hit count of zero is itself a useful answer.

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, with no filler. The core action and output shape come first, and the actionable interpretation of a zero hit count follows immediately. This is efficient and 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?

Given that output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the operation is a simple trace read, the description provides enough operating context. The main residual gap is the undocumented pid parameter, but it is optional and handle is already described in the schema.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented pid parameter. The handle parameter does have schema-level meaning ('omit if only one is installed'), but the description itself adds no parameter-level guidance. An agent would have to infer what pid refers to.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read what an installed trace has recorded' and specifies exactly the returned information (most recent hit values and hit count). It also differentiates itself from siblings like dosbox_install_trace and dosbox_remove_trace by describing a read of existing recorded state.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after a trace is installed, to see whether it fired and what values were captured. Interpreting a zero hit count is also explicitly explained, which guides acting on the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it does not earn a 5.

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