Show a safe Omarchy OSD (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions verification that the OSD opened, which implies a return status or check. The word 'safe' hints at non-destructiveness but is vague. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it blocks. This is minimal but not absent.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a key behavioral detail (verification). No wasted words, appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify whether message and progress are mutually exclusive, the meaning of icon choices, the effect of durationMs, or the exact return value (though verification is implied). An agent would be unsure how to combine parameters or what to expect in return.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'message or 0-100 progress value', clarifying the message and progress parameters, but it does not explain icon or durationMs, nor how message and progress interact (e.g., mutually exclusive). It adds partial meaning but fails to cover the full parameter set.

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 displays an Omarchy OSD either as a message or a progress value, and verifies it opened. This is a specific verb+resource combination. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like notification_send or display_text_size, the 'Omarchy OSD' context is distinctive enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether to use it over notification_send for transient on-screen feedback, or any conditions that would make it inappropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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