notify_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the visible effect (a status line in the badge) and highlights an important trait: this is the only channel the user actually sees. It also gives a style constraint ('Keep it to a few words'), which helps agents use it appropriately. It doesn't mention return/blocking behavior, but for this simple notification tool that is a minor omission.

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 three sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives timing and rationale, and the third gives a constraint. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, when to use it, and how to phrase the content. It is complete for its intended purpose.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds stylistic guidance ('Keep it to a few words') that applies to the 'detail' parameter, but the individual parameter meanings are already fully covered by the schema ('What you are doing' and 'Short human-readable detail'). The description does not need to add more.

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 states a specific verb ('Show'), a specific resource ('a short status line ... in the badge'), and a clear audience ('the human'). It also distinguishes itself as the only visible user channel, which separates it from other session/communication tools like session_ask_user.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'call it before a slow or surprising step so a frozen-looking app is explained.' It explains the context and benefits clearly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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