show_info_message

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

Without annotations, the description explains that the tool displays a dialog and the user clicks OK to acknowledge. This provides sufficient transparency for a simple, non-destructive tool, though it could mention that no permanent changes occur.

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, with the main purpose stated first. Every word is essential; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior—displaying a message and requiring OK. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only states that there are title and message parameters. 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 function: 'Show an information message to the user.' It specifies a verb (show) and a resource (information message), and the mention of clicking OK distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_confirmation_dialog which require a decision.

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 for informational messages that require only acknowledgement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_input or show_confirmation_dialog. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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