busybar_show_message

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 does disclose two useful traits — the overlay is temporary and the underlying app is restored on expiry — but it omits whether the call blocks until expiry, what happens if a second message is shown while one is active, permission/connection requirements, and what is returned. For a mutation-style display tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful 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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the key behavior (temporary, auto-dismiss, app restored) stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the required 'message' parameter and the display selection unaddressed.

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?

With three parameters, one required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do much more. An agent still cannot tell what the call returns, whether it waits for the duration, how overlapping messages behave, or how the front/back displays differ semantically.

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 33%, so the description should compensate, and it does not. The words 'temporary' and 'expires' hint that durationSeconds controls lifetime, but no units, bounds, or default are explained, nothing is said about the 1-120 character message content, and the front/back display choice is left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Show a temporary WM overlay'. Combined with the tool name busybar_show_message, an agent can tell this puts a transient message on the device. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like bar_text or bar_progress, which also render content on the bar.

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 only implied: 'temporary' plus 'automatically reveal the app underneath when it expires' suggests this is for transient notifications layered over the current app. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bar_text, nor any exclusion or prerequisite such as needing an active connection or a foreground app.

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