show_message

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the useful behavioral fact that no dialog is opened and that output goes to the status bar. It does not state persistence/duration, whether it interrupts the user, or whether it can be cleared, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a UI-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?

Two short sentences: purpose first, behavioral clarification second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema notification tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers what it does, where the text appears, and how it differs from dialog tools. Minor omissions around message lifetime keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the weight of the single 'text' parameter. 'Short message' conveys that the value is the displayed message and implies a brevity constraint, but no format, length, or escaping guidance is given.

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 (show) and resource (short message in Live's status bar) with a concrete location cue ('bottom of the window'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from dialog-based siblings: 'It does not open a dialog.'

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('to tell the user what the agent is doing') and implicitly steers away from respond_to_dialog by denying dialog behavior. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternative, but the intended context is clear.

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