show

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

Annotations already declare it is non-destructive but also not read-only (it mutates viewer state) and idempotent. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether calling it replaces or adds to existing representations, whether it applies to the whole object or just the selection, or that it affects the live viewer. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this sentence contributes no additional context.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but says little.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return values and arg meaning are covered elsewhere. What is missing is the viewer-state context — whether this replaces prior representations and how it differs from its inverse/alternatives — which matters for a state-mutating display tool.

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 'selection' and 'representation' fully documented including the allowed representation list, so baseline 3 applies. The description mentions 'selection' but adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a verb ('Shows') and resource ('a graphical representation') scoped to 'a given selection', so the basic action is discernible. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as 'as' (which likely sets the representation type) or 'hide' (the inverse), leaving the agent to infer the boundary. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'as', 'hide', 'cartoon', or 'util_*' coloring tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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