dosbox_sample

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that each row shares a coherent snapshot (no column drift), that the output is an on-disk TSV plus an entry-time segment dump, and that the dump allows offline investigation. It does not enumerate every side effect, such as pokes, but the schema already documents those and the annotations are consistent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each major sentence contributes useful context: the semantics, the sibling contrast, the snapshot consistency guarantee, and the side outputs. The rhetorical phrase 'which is what most questions about a running program actually are' is slightly extraneous but not bloated or confusing.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with high schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description covers the conceptual essentials: what it samples, how it differs from siblings, and what output artifacts are produced. It does not spell out duration, frequency, or pokes flow, but those are already described in the input schema and the description is strong enough for selection and initial invocation.

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 86% schema description coverage, the schema does most of the parameter-documentation work, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds a little extra meaning by clarifying that watches can be symbols, offsets, or profile-defined watch sets and that the dump lets unreported questions be answered later, but it does not redefine the parameter contracts.

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 and resource: 'Sample a set of memory fields repeatedly and write the series as a TSV.' It then immediately distinguishes itself from dosbox_read_memory and dosbox_wait_for by positioning this tool as answering 'how it MOVES,' so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening 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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: dosbox_read_memory answers what a value is, dosbox_wait_for answers when it becomes something, and this tool answers how it moves over time. This is a genuine when-to-use vs. alternative-tool comparison, not just a vague statement of behavior.

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