show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists outputs. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the name does not match a stored reference, or whether any cached data is regenerated. For a tool named show this is a notable gap.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loads the key outputs. It earns its place, though a second sentence explaining the 'name' parameter would improve utility without harming concision.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what 'name' refers to, whether the call is read-only, and what the response contains. It only partially covers the response (summary and screenshot) and omits the rest, leaving an agent to guess.

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% and the description never explains the required 'name' property: what it refers to, how it maps to a stored reference, or expected format. The description therefore adds no semantic value for the only parameter.

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 identifies a clear deliverable — a measurement summary and hero screenshot for a stored reference — which distinguishes it from search/discover/measure/critique sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'display' but the noun phrase conveys a display/read action well 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?

There is no guidance on when to call show versus a sibling, no prerequisites such as having measured the reference first, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'stored reference' implies the item must already exist, but that is left to inference.

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