advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the content format and marker meanings but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, session semantics, or any limitations of the side-panel display, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and highly efficient. It packs marker definitions into a compact, readable list without any wasted words.

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 simple display tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the primary behavior and content semantics well. However, the unexplained `session` parameter and lack of details about side-panel interaction (e.g., persistence, replacement) leave gaps that an agent would need for fully correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning to the `marker` parameter by defining each enum value and provides guidance for `text` (keep it one glanceable sentence). However, the `session` parameter is completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter explanations.

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 action and target ('Show a line in the side panel') and enumerates the marker categories, which clarifies its purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the side-panel UI and marker semantics make it 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?

Usage is implied through the marker definitions (e.g., use RISK for a problem, ACTION for a to-do), but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings like `chat_reply` or `speak`, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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