stage_show_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Show a message on stage screens' implies a display action but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether this overrides existing content, how long the message persists, what happens if multiple messages are shown, or what the response looks like. For a tool that presumably affects visible output, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 that presumably displays content on stage screens (a visible, potentially disruptive operation), the description is insufficient. No annotations exist to provide safety/behavioral context, no output schema describes what's returned, and the description doesn't explain what constitutes successful execution or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by affecting stage output, this is incomplete.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'message' documented as 'The message data to display'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('show') and target resource ('message on stage screens'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'stage_hide_message' or 'stage_get_message', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to messages (messages_create, messages_trigger, stage_hide_message, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 'stage show' operation is appropriate versus other message-related operations.

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