expand_notifications

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true (side effects possible), readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the prerequisite of active scrcpy session, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if no session is active (error behavior) or what the output represents, given there's an output schema.

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 concise sentence with the key prerequisite in parentheses. It's front-loaded and efficient with zero waste. Could arguably add sibling differentiation, but as written it's appropriately tight for a simple action tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no required params, full schema coverage, output schema present). The description captures the purpose and the key prerequisite (active scrcpy session). For a simple panel-expansion action, the description is complete enough. The only minor gap is not contrasting with expand_settings, but the simple scope makes this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'serial' parameter described as 'Device serial number'. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage and clear output schema, the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'active scrcpy session' contextually clarifies that serial should reference the session device, adding minor value, warranting a 4.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Expand the notification panel'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes from its sibling 'expand_settings' which expands a different panel type, though it doesn't explicitly name it. The parenthetical about active scrcpy session adds useful prerequisite context.

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 by stating the prerequisite of an active scrcpy session, which guides when it's valid to call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs. alternatives like expand_settings or collapse_panels, nor mention that it pairs naturally with collapse_panels for cleanup.

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