viwoods_show_match

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses real side effects: writing a file to a folder on the PC, conditionally opening it there, the 3-match cap, and a dependency on paperd's index. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false; it confirms a side-effecting operation. Gaps remain (which folder, overwrite behavior, failure modes).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior before the usage trigger and the input-sourcing note. Slightly dense and parenthetical, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the user sees (zoomed page with red outlines, saved file, optional open). It covers effects and dependencies well, though folder location and error conditions are left unspecified.

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 0% with 3 required params, so the description must carry the load, and it does: `words` is the text to outline (max 3 hits), while `notebook` and `page` are identifiers sourced from viwoods_search_handwriting. It does not clarify the expected format of `notebook` (name vs. id), leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 concrete verb and resource (show the user a zoomed page with `words` outlined in red) plus precise scope details (up to 3 spots, saved to a PC folder). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like viwoods_search_handwriting, which it positions as the finder rather than the displayer.

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?

It explicitly states the trigger ("Use it when they ask to *see* or be shown where they wrote something") and the prerequisite source for inputs (take `notebook` and `page` from viwoods_search_handwriting). It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an explicit alternative to this display action.

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