Show Text In Sim

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

Annotations already cover non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds that it is an overlay message for debug feedback but does not disclose details such as whether new messages replace old ones or whether appearance settings affect behavior beyond the parameters. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds only modest behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: it states the action, the target resource, and the intended use case.

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 tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and useful annotations, the description carries enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be stronger by explicitly stating that the message is transient and purely visual, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations covers the essentials.

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 100%, with all parameters (text, color, duration_s) already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'debug feedback' intent and no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Display' and names the exact resource ('text overlay message in the simulator'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. The phrase 'debug feedback' reinforces intent, and the described action is unique among the sibling tools listed, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical '(debug feedback)' gives clear situational context: this tool is for displaying temporary informational messages during debugging. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides the same text-overlay capability, so the context is sufficient for selection.

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