test_notification

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

The description adds context beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the purpose is to verify OS permissions and that it sends a test notification. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like whether a notification visibly appears to the user or any failure modes if permissions are missing, but this is largely implied.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a useful cross-reference. No wasted words.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, why to use it, and how to proceed if issues arise. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'sound' clearly described as 'Include a sound alert in the test notification'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Send a test desktop notification to verify that OS permissions are correctly configured.' It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('test desktop notification'), and distinguishes it from the diagnostic sibling 'check_notification_setup'.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use check_notification_setup first to diagnose any issues.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after checking setup) and names the alternative tool for diagnostics.

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