show_notification

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

The description states the toast 'Changes nothing else', characterizing a transient, harmless UI display, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description directly conflicts with the structured safety metadata, leaving the agent unable to trust either signal about side effects.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the return information is stated twice ('Returns shown and echoes message, completion_state and duration' followed by an explicit 'Returns: { … }'), which is redundant repetition rather than added clarity.

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?

Since there is no output schema, describing the return shape is genuinely useful, and the description covers params, return values, and the fallback edge case. However it gives no usage context and, more importantly, leaves the destructive/read-only question unresolved against the annotations, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description's added detail ('unrecognized completion_state silently falls back to None', 'lifetime in seconds') is essentially restated from the schema, so it adds little beyond what the structured fields already provide.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show a ... toast in the editor') and names the underlying subsystem ('Slate notification manager'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of the 5 bar only because there is no sibling tool it needs to be distinguished from, so no differentiation work is done.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. 'Fire-and-forget' hints at the operating mode but does not tell the agent under what circumstances this tool should be preferred over other editor-output mechanisms (e.g. print_to_output_log).

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