System Show Notification

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

Annotations carry only openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description bears the burden of explaining behavior — and says nothing. It fails to disclose that this produces a user-visible on-screen notification, may require Notification permission, and has visible side effects. The 'Delegated' framing hints at authorization but adds no behavioral detail.

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 single sentence is short, but its only content is the tool name and a boilerplate transport phrase, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. No functional information is front-loaded because none exists.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (three flat string parameters, output schema present), the description omits the one fact that matters: that this posts a notification to the user's screen. A single functional sentence would make this complete; the current text is interchangeable with any other 'Delegated Apple domain 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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description offers no parameter information. Title, body, and subtitle are conventional names an agent can guess at, but neither the schema nor the description confirms their semantic role or formatting constraints. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 is a provenance statement — 'Delegated Apple domain tool system_show_notification exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' — that restates the tool's name without defining its action. An agent must infer from the name alone that this displays a system notification. This is a tautology with transport metadata replacing functional meaning.

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?

No text addresses when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as system_status, system_get_frontmost_app, or system_gui_type_text. There is no mention of context like 'when the user should receive visible feedback' or exclusions for other notification-like operations. The agent receives zero routing guidance.

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