ap_show_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that the toast is transient, the modal blocks ArmorPaint's UI thread, and the bridge stalls until dismissal. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the parameter defaults.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by the important caveat and recommendation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 message-display tool, the description plus the fully covered schema provide enough to call it correctly. The key risk, modal-induced bridge stalling, is disclosed. No output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about toast vs. modal behavior but does not enrich individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource: showing a message to the user in ArmorPaint, with toast or modal variants. It is clearly distinct from the many painting/importing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related ap_console_write sibling.

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 explicitly advises preferring the toast and warns that a modal blocks the UI thread and stalls the bridge until dismissed. This gives clear when-to-use guidance for the modal option, but it does not address when to choose this tool over ap_console_write for message-like output.

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