トースト通知

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'displays a toast on TV screen' and offers no information on side effects, duration, whether the TV must be on, or any authentication requirements. This is a minimal statement without additional behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema, and the purpose is clear. However, there is no mention of behavioral context, return behavior, or usage caveats. Since no output schema exists and annotations are absent, a bit more detail about expected behavior would make it complete – though the current level is adequate for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both device and message have descriptions, including constraints like maxLength=200). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('表示する' – display) and a clear resource ('TV 画面にトースト通知' – toast notification on TV screen). It precisely identifies the tool's function and is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which involve toasts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely a single functional statement and does not help an agent decide between show_toast and other display-related tools.

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