notify_error

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 clearly indicates the tool sends a user-facing critical error notification, which is the primary side effect. The description is straightforward and does not hide any surprising behavior, making it sufficiently transparent.

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 just two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?

For a simple notification tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not mention whether the call returns a value or is asynchronous, but these are not critical for such a basic tool, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (error_message, command, stack_trace) with 100% coverage, so the schema already gives the necessary parameter semantics. The description adds no direct parameter details, but that is acceptable since the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 that the tool sends a critical error notification to the user, with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('critical error notification'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_telegram_message by emphasizing the error-specific nature and the need for user attention.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when terminal commands fail or errors occur that need user attention. This provides clear usable context, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, stopping just short of the full 5.

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