Send Desktop Notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Cross-platform' is a useful availability hint, but it never says whether the call blocks until dismissal, whether it is fire-and-forget, what happens on headless/unsupported systems, or how failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the configurable dimensions. No filler, nothing repeated, nothing that fails to earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. However, for a locally side-effecting display tool with no annotations, the description leaves blocking behavior and platform failure modes unaddressed.

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%, with enum values, defaults, and duration semantics (0 = persistent, undefined = priority-based) already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same fields, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Display') with a specific resource ('cross-platform desktop notification') and enumerates its configurable facets. It is unambiguous, though there are no siblings to be distinguished from, so it stops short of the 5 anchor.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternative (no output/notification channel options are compared). Usage is only implied by the tool's surface function.

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