send_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the supported channels, the requirement to match 'type' to the configured channel, and the default-channel fallback. However, it does not explain behavior on failure (e.g., invalid channel, unreachable endpoint) or the return format, which are important for a send operation.

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 sentence followed by an inline example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds the critical usage detail without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, channel options, parameter semantics, and default behavior, which is sufficient for a simple notification sender. It lacks error handling details, but these may be less critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing a concrete example with serverChan and its key field, and by explaining that omitting notificationInfo uses the system default channel. This goes beyond the schema's bark example and clarifies the expected structure.

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 starts with 'Send a notification through Qinglong's notification system', which clearly states the action (send) and resource (Qinglong notifications). It lists multiple supported channels and is distinguished from all sibling tools, which are cron/env/script management operations. The purpose is unambiguous and precise.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when sending notifications, and there are no alternative notification tools in the sibling list. It provides explicit guidance on when to include notificationInfo (matching configured channel) and when to omit it (use system default). No exclusions are needed because no alternatives exist.

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