notification_show

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the notification's delivery is unverifiable due to Focus Assist settings etc., and that successful responses always include hints.verifyDelivery with status='unverifiable'. It also mentions the technology used (System.Windows.Forms). This provides valuable behavioral context beyond just stating the action.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the purpose and usage, then proceeds to caveats and technical details. It is appropriately sized for the complexity; every sentence adds value. Minor stylistic mix of languages, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the crucial behavioral aspect of the response (hints.verifyDelivery). It also covers limitations and indirect observation strategies. It is complete for a simple notification tool.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (title, body, include). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Show a Windows system tray balloon notification to alert the user,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are browser, mouse, keyboard, etc. No confusion about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when to use: 'Use at the end of a long-running task so the user knows it finished without watching the screen.' This gives good context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, though the context is clear enough.

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