check_notification_setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it checks for required OS tools and provides setup instructions. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's non-destructive diagnostic nature.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary detail. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and scope. It could mention the return format explicitly, but given the absence of an output schema, the clarity of 'provides setup instructions' is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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's function with a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('desktop notification support'). It also specifies the platforms (macOS, Linux, Windows) and adds details about checking OS tools and providing setup instructions, distinguishing it from siblings like test_notification and configure_alerts.

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 implies usage for diagnosing notification setup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, relying on the reader to infer its role as a diagnostic first step.

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