dosbox_record

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a genuinely non-obvious behavior: DOSBox-X starts an OPL capture at the guest's first register write, so arming late moves the capture window rather than truncating it. This is valuable behavioral context and is consistent with the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and output, the second states the tool's unique value, and the third gives the most critical timing caution. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return value, but the tool still has six parameters and one enum option (record_video) that are only partially or inconsistently covered by the description. The core 'provide a duration and record audio' flow is well explained, but the video capture and file-location parameters could leave an agent guessing in less common invocations.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping record kinds to file formats (.dro, .mid, .wav), which helps with the kind parameter. However, it ignores pid, settle_seconds, captures_directory, config's full role, and the record_video enum alternative, leaving several parameters under-explained.

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 action ('Record the guest's sound...') and clearly names the produced artifacts (.dro, .mid, .wav), so an agent can tell this is an audio-capture tool. However, it does not differentiate it from related siblings like dosbox_capture_screen or dosbox_sample, and it omits the record_video kind that appears in the schema.

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 phrase 'This is the only independent record of what a game's sound driver actually writes' gives a strong, explicit reason to use this tool over alternatives for sound-driver investigation. The early-arming warning also adds context, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use this tool.

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