show_textWrite short text on the robot's 240x240 screen, replacing existing content; long lines wrap. Use to display messages, labels, or status directly on the VEX AIM robot.
Write text on the robot's 240x240 screen, replacing whatever was there. Long lines wrap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | medium | |
| text | Yes | What to write; keep it short | |
| color | No | white | |
| background | No | black |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, so they don't surface that this overwrites prior content. The description explicitly says it replaces whatever was on screen and that long lines wrap, which is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary effect (write text, replacing content) is front-loaded before the wrapping detail.
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 display tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, target screen, and overflow handling. The main omission is guidance on the undocumented size/color/background parameters.
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 only 25%: text is documented, but size, color, and background have no descriptions. The description adds the screen dimensions and wrapping behavior but says nothing about the enum size options or how color/background interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: write text on the robot's 240x240 screen. The screen medium clearly separates it from siblings like say (speech) and show_emoji (icons), though it doesn't name any alternative.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as say for spoken output or show_emoji for an icon. The usage is only implied by the description of the effect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.