dosbox_sessions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description additionally clarifies scope by noting it returns both attached sessions and other visible DOSBox-X windows on the machine, but it does not describe how filtering or window-title affects results. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single focused sentence. It front-loads the main action and result, and every phrase ('attached sessions', 'other visible windows', 'process ids') adds value. No filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool, this is largely complete: it says what is listed, the scope, and an important output detail (process IDs). The output schema exists so return documentation is not needed. The main omission is that the optional window_title parameter is not mentioned, which is important for full standalone clarity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It does not mention `window_title` at all, leaving the agent to infer whether it is for filtering, matching, or returning output. The parameter name offers some minimal hint, but not sufficient guarantees.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('attached sessions and any other visible DOSBox-X windows on the machine'), including process IDs. This is clear and distinct from the sibling options, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming an alternative tool.

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 intended use is implied: call this to enumerate sessions/windows and their process IDs. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like dosbox_attach, dosbox_launch, or dosbox_profiles, nor does it provide explicit exclusion conditions.

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