Show an Android toast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the real behavioral detail that delivery goes through Termux:API, implying an external dependency, but says nothing about failure modes when the API app is missing or whether the call blocks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (action, target, mechanism) earns its place.

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 trivial two-parameter side-effect tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits the one thing an agent might need to know operationally: that it depends on the Termux:API add-on being installed and functional.

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 100%: both text (1-500 chars) and the short boolean default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Show a short toast message on the device") and names the transport (Termux:API). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like notify, vibrate, or tts_speak, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use a toast versus notify or tts_speak, and no mention of prerequisites (Termux:API app installed, foreground app visibility). Usage is only implied by the name and the word "short".

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