show_exhibit

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary behavior (displaying an exhibit) and adds context about its role. While it does not mention side effects or state changes, the read-only nature is implied by 'candidate is meant to see,' providing reasonable transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds essential context and usage instruction. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, why it is used, and the sequence of actions. It could mention the default for exhibit_id, but that is already covered in the schema, so the description is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for the only parameter (exhibit_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Display a chart or table in the room') and further clarifies its unique role in the interview by noting that exhibits are the one thing the candidate is meant to see. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'say' or 'reveal_model_answer'.

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 clear usage context: 'Speak the intro line, then give them a moment before asking what they make of it.' It also explains the purpose relative to the candidate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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