send_notification

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a side effect through the verb 'send' but does not mention permissions, reversibility, failure modes, or return behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and recipient, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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 sending tool, the description and schema are adequate, but the lack of usage guidance and no output schema leave uncertainty about expected outcomes. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, including the urgency enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline score 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 states the tool sends a text message notification to the user, using a specific verb and target. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool check_notification_response, but the action is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling check_notification_response, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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