show_spinner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool toggles the spinner, but does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., whether it overlays the UI, affects editor state, or if repeated calls stack). The basic behavior is transparent, but additional context about the spinner's lifecycle or interaction with other UI elements is missing.

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 action, and every phrase earns its place. The first sentence conveys the purpose, and the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema 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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to trigger each behavior, and when to use it. No further context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'show' and 'message' parameters documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter detail beyond the schema, only implicitly linking 'show=true' and 'show=false' to starting/finishing operations. Since the schema already provides full parameter definitions, a 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 tool's action ('Show or hide a loading spinner') with a specific resource ('in the draw.io editor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_status and show_ai_cursor by focusing on the loading spinner specifically, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use show=true when starting a long operation and show=false when done.' This gives clear operational timing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple spinner control, the guidance is sufficient.

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