show_overlay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether showing an overlay is reversible, whether it affects current scene state, whether it requires an active show, or what side effects occur. The word 'show' implies a visual state change but gives no behavioral details.

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 extremely short (three words), which is concise but crosses the line into under-specification. It's not verbose, but the brevity fails to convey meaningful information beyond the title.

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 2 parameters (one requiring a nested free-form 'params' object), no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. The nested params object needs explanation, and the relationship to other overlay/show tools should be clarified for the agent to use it correctly.

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, but it doesn't. The overlayId parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the 'params' object parameter (a nested free-form object) is entirely undocumented—no indication of what keys or values it accepts, which is a significant gap given it's a nested object.

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 'Show an overlay' states the verb ('show') and resource ('overlay') clearly, and it is distinct from the sibling 'hide_overlay'. However, it doesn't clarify what showing an overlay entails (e.g., making it visible in a scene, toggling its display state) or how it differs from triggering an effect or marking highlights.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like start_show, end_show, trigger_effect, and set_scene, there's no explanation of when showing an overlay is the right action versus other scene/effect manipulation tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites like whether a show must be running first.

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