display_polybar_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and use cases but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal on behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and its usefulness. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error conditions. With no output schema, it should ideally mention what happens after display, but it's minimally viable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Display a message') and target ('in polybar status bar'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_popup_notification' beyond mentioning polybar specifically, which is good but not fully comparative.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for notifying the user when an operation is complete or when waiting for user input'), giving practical scenarios. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like the sibling tool, but the context is sufficient for informed usage.

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