notify_session

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 states that a summary is pushed to the current session, but it does not explain side effects such as whether the message persists, whether an active session is required, or whether any response is returned. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that mutates session state.

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 a single compact sentence with the main action and target front-loaded, followed by a short parenthetical purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral side-effect disclosure, which are relevant for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter, including enums, defaults, and the meaning of summary/details/think_ref. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('推送' / push), the object ('审计结果摘要' / audit result summary), and the target ('当前 session'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from audit-execution siblings like run_audit and audit_file. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related notification/persistence tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The parenthetical '确保结果可见' implies a purpose, but the description never states that this should follow run_audit or that write_think might be an alternative for persistent reflection.

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