notify_completion

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

Despite annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive action, the description adds valuable behavioral details: never send escaped HTML, avoid emoji/greetings/'done' prefaces, and state concrete results. These formatting rules go beyond what annotations convey.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides actionable guidance without wordiness. It is an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and existence of an output schema, the description covers core usage and formatting behavior well. It does not explain all parameter purposes or contrast with siblings, but it provides enough practical context for a notification tool. A slightly lower score would be warranted if the parameter set were more complex.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates for the 'format' and 'preset' parameters by explaining when to use each, and 'summary' is implicitly linked to 'state the concrete completed result.' However, the other six parameters (agent, model, project, subject, route, reference) remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it sends a 'concise formatted completion notice' when explicitly requested. This distinguishes it from sibling messaging tools by specifying the completion-notice purpose and the conditional trigger.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use 'brief' preset by default, choose 'standard' or 'detailed' only when user requests more context, and prefer HTML format. Although it does not name alternative sibling tools, it clearly defines when to use this tool versus over-use.

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