show_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action plainly (displaying a message) and does not contradict any annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the message persists, replaces an existing status, or returns a value. The simple nature of the tool mitigates this gap.

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 focused, with a single sentence stating the function and a brief parameter breakdown. Every word earns its place, and the structure is conventional and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description is complete without explaining return values. It covers the action and parameter clearly, leaving no significant information gaps for an agent to select and 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explicitly documenting the 'message' parameter as 'Text to display in the status bar', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Message' title. This fully explains the parameter's purpose and value.

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 names the exact resource ('message in the Ableton Live status bar'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools, which focus on views, playback, or device control.

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 implies usage (displaying a status message) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For a simple utility, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit 'when to use' framing.

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