dosbox_watch_frames

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond what annotations already state: it reads video memory rather than the GUI, does not slow the guest, captures distinct frames with the guest's own timings, and writes files as <stem>_NNN.png. This complements the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags well.

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 short, front-loaded, and has no fluff. Both the outcome and the distinctive behavior are introduced early, and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with seven parameters and an output schema, the description provides the core context: what it watches, when to use it, and where frames land. It does not explain the max_frames/interval cap fully, but those are already documented in the schema. It is nearly complete and trustworthy.

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 description adds a bit of parameter meaning, especially around stem by explaining the file naming convention. However, with 57% schema coverage, the description does not flesh out key parameters like pid, max_frames, or interval_seconds beyond their schema descriptions. It is adequate but not compensating significantly.

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 names a specific action and resource: watching the guest's video memory and returning distinct frames with their appearance timings. It also distinguishes itself from filming the screen by noting that reading video memory does not slow the guest, so it is clearly targetable among the many dosbox sibling tools.

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 explicitly says this is how to measure animations, fades, and transitions, and explains why it should be preferred over filming the window. It does not formally name alternative tools or list exclusion conditions, so it is clear but not maximally prescriptive.

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