retroarch_show_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It thoroughly details behavior: renders the message, fire-and-forget (no acknowledgment), UDP silent drops, messages not queued, line breaks stripped, and transport requirements. This exceeds typical transparency expectations for a simple notification tool.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, etc.), making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Although it is lengthy, every sentence adds value and does not contain fluff. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is effective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, limitations, transport requirements, return format, and even mentions the lack of sibling tools. An agent can fully understand how and when to use this 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?

The single parameter 'message' has 100% schema description coverage. The description adds some context beyond the schema (e.g., fire-and-forget), but the schema already covers line breaks, consecutive calls, and length. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and while the description adds value, it does not significantly elevate parameter understanding beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Display a single-line notification message overlaid on the RetroArch window (OSD overlay).' It specifies the verb (display), resource (notification message), and location. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating 'this is the ONLY way to push text from the agent onto the RetroArch display.'

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 provides explicit use cases: 'debug output, progress markers during long-running scripts, or to communicate with a human.' It explains when to use (cosmetic communication) and gives guidance on the fire-and-forget nature and verification steps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use; this is implied by the context.

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