notify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the immediacy/timing behavior ('right now'), but says nothing about notification permissions, whether the banner persists, or what happens on failure — meaningful context for a display-side-effect tool that is left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences plus a compact Args block; the purpose and the alternative are front-loaded before the parameter detail. Nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, the alternative sibling, and both parameters adequately. The only gap is post-call behavior (permissions, success/failure signalling), which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'title' is defined as a short bold heading and 'message' as body text, covering both required parameters with role and formatting expectations. It could go slightly further on length limits or formatting constraints, but it compensates well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show a macOS notification banner') plus a temporal constraint ('right now'), which immediately separates it from the sibling create_reminder. An agent can identify the tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative ('For a reminder at a later time, use create_reminder') and gives the condition that selects it, so the when-to-use boundary is unambiguous. This is exactly the routing guidance a sibling-rich toolkit needs.

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