send_ntfy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as delivery guarantees, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The one-line description offers none of this, leaving the agent without any insight into the tool's side effects or operational constraints.

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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise. However, it is also under-specified in terms of content, which slightly lowers the score from 5, but it does not suffer from verbosity.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling tools. The description provides minimal context about what ntfy is, how the notification is delivered, or any operational expectations. While the schema covers parameter details, the overall description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's purpose and behavior in a broader context.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including details for message, topic, priority, tags, click, title, and actions. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline of 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 action ('Send') and the resource ('a notification via ntfy'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It is not a tautology and provides enough specificity to distinguish the tool's core function, though it lacks detail about topics or parameters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it fits among alternatives. The description only states the basic action without any context about prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or alternative tools. Since there are no sibling tools or additional context, the user is left with no direction beyond the obvious.

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