show_ros2_interface

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 states the tool shows the interface definition but does not describe the output format (e.g., text, structure) or any side effects. This leaves key behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief Args section and an example. The main action is stated first, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter format but omits details about the return value (the interface definition output). This gap makes it less complete for agents without additional context.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful information: it specifies the parameter 'msg_type' as 'The interface type to show' and provides an example ('std_msgs/msg/String'). While helpful, it could be more precise about the required format (e.g., fully qualified type).

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 tool shows the interface definition for a given ROS 2 message or service type, using specific verb 'shows the interface' and resource 'ROS 2 message or service type'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like echo_ros2_topic or get_topic_info, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where it is preferred. An example is given but lacks contextual comparison to sibling tools.

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