notify_notify

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

The description explains the fallback behavior from desktop to file log, which is good. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described) or any potential side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but falls short on return value transparency.

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 concise: three short sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence explains what it does, the second explains how, and the third explains when to use it. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and usage context adequately. It is missing details about the output and error cases, but those may be covered by the output schema, and the tool is straightforward.

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 input schema parameters 'title' and 'message' have clear names, but the description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least hint at format or constraints (e.g., title max length), but it does not.

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 clearly states the tool sends a notification and explains the channel selection logic (desktop first, fallback to file log). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notify_notify_desktop and notify_notify_file by being the automatic best-effort channel.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use when a task completes or an important event occurs.' It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., when a specific channel is required) and mentioning alternatives.

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