show_status

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 discloses the prerequisite 'Requires the companion extension,' which is valuable, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as whether the message replaces the previous status, how it behaves if the extension is missing, or whether it is transient.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and includes practical context and a prerequisite without any fluff. 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and a requirement. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention whether the status message is persistent or overwrites previous messages.

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 describes the only parameter (message) with a clear example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond restating 'status message,' so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('status message in the draw.io editor status bar'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also implies a distinct role from sibling tools like show_spinner or show_ai_cursor, which target different UI feedback mechanisms.

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?

It states the tool is 'useful for showing what the AI is currently doing,' which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a 5.

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