show_message

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals an important side effect: the tool acquires a VM lease and leaves the VM locked until vm_unlock is called. This is critical stateful behavior that an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint or destructiveHint alone. It stops short of explaining blocking behavior or lease-failure handling, but the main behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical lock/unlock caveat immediately follows, making every sentence operationally relevant.

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 simple two-parameter dialog tool, the description covers the main integration risk: the acquired lease and required vm_unlock call. It does not mention return values or whether the dialog blocks, but no output schema exists and the essential call sequence is provided.

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?

The schema describes vm_name explicitly but gives only type and length constraints for message. The description implicitly indicates that message is the dialog's displayed text, but it does not explicitly map parameters to their roles. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented message 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Display a Windows 98 message dialog titled Windows 98 Remote Control.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling VM, input, and file tools, and the dialog title removes ambiguity about what it does.

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 description explains the lock lifecycle: it acquires the VM lease, keeps the VM locked, and instructs the agent to call vm_unlock when finished. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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