build_show_text

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

The description explicitly states that the tool is read-only and returns { commands, warnings? }, writes nothing, which is critical behavioral transparency given no annotations exist. It also discloses the non-wrapping behavior and character limits, including that long lines are warned but never blocked.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packs in usage, behavioral warnings, and return format without redundancy. Every 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?

The description provides a complete picture for a relatively complex builder tool: purpose, output structure, key constraints, and read-only safety. The schema covers parameter details, and the description adds the operational context needed to use it correctly, especially the word-wrap limitation and the list_assets reference.

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 descriptions already cover all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: lines should be kept under ~55 chars (~38 with a face), faceName should come from list_assets('faces'), and the background/position/speaker parameters map to the mentioned features, enhancing beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as building a Show Text event-command sequence, with a specific construction detail (101 setup + 401 lines) and a stated downstream use (insertion via insert_event_commands). This distinguishes it from sibling build_* tools like build_show_choices or build_conditional_branch.

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 states that the output is intended for insertion via insert_event_commands, and it provides context for when to use this tool (creating Show Text commands). It mentions supported features (face, background, position, speaker) and a critical constraint (MZ word-wrap), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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