Send Notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningfully: it discloses that a failed push never fails the underlying operation, is logged server-side only, and has fire-and-forget async semantics. This is genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema reveals. Minor omissions like rate limits or auth requirements keep it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds information: the async nature, the topic resolution source, and the failure behavior. Nothing could be trimmed without losing value.

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?

Adequate for a fire-and-forget notification: failure behavior and topic resolution are covered, and no output schema is needed for an async fire-and-forget call. However, the unexplained 'tags' parameter and absence of any usage guidance leave real gaps that the 0% schema coverage makes harder to ignore.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'profile' (topic resolution per profile config). 'message' is self-evident by name, while 'tags' — an array of strings with no schema detail — is left entirely unexplained. The description doesn't add meaning for two of the three parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Fire-and-forget push notification to the profile's ntfy topic.' This is precise and clearly distinguishes it from all 51 siblings, none of which are notification-related. An agent can identify this tool's role instantly.

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 'fire-and-forget' phrasing implies when it's appropriate (async notification where you don't await a result), but there's no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. No sibling notification tool exists, so differentiation isn't critical, but prerequisites or conditions for use are never stated.

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