hud_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the message renders on a HUD overlay and is 'short', but says nothing about persistence, whether a new call replaces or stacks with an existing message, per-call limits, or what the caller can observe afterwards — all material for a UI-mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the purpose clause adding real value rather than padding. It is not bloated, though the space saved could have been spent on the duration parameter.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description omits the duration control, the message length constraint, and overwrite behavior. For a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, those omissions leave an agent unable to predict what a call will actually do to the HUD.

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 needed to explain the two parameters and does not: 'text' is only obliquely referenced via 'short message' (no 500-character cap, no required-ness), and the 'seconds' duration parameter is never mentioned at all, despite driving the tool's core behavior.

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 message on the in-game HUD overlay' — plus the audience-facing rationale (player reads AI updates/alerts without leaving the game). It is not tautological and reads distinctly from the simulation/cheat siblings, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from any communication mechanism, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'so the player can read AI updates and alerts' clause implies the intended use case (non-blocking notifications to the human player), which is a reasonable contextual signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no statement about repeated calls overwriting or queueing messages, and no mention of when a message is inappropriate.

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