notify

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully implies a local, non-destructive alert and discloses that the url parameter causes a page to be opened — a real behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It does not say what happens for URLs outside the four named domains, whether the notification blocks, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding — the core purpose comes first and the URL clause second. The URL sentence is slightly telegraphic ('opens a ... page') but nothing is wasted.

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 trivial three-parameter notification tool with no output schema this is nearly sufficient, but gaps remain: what happens to non-matching URLs, what 'title' controls, and whether the tool returns anything at all. Adequate rather than 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for 'url' (constrained to github.com, npmjs.com, pypi.org, crates.io) and an example value for 'message', but 'title' (with its 'publish-pilot' default) is never mentioned and the required/optional status of each is unstated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Desktop notification', with a concrete example message ('Ready for your approval') that anchors the intent. No sibling tool in the list does anything comparable, so differentiation is implicit and adequate, though it never explicitly frames itself as a local side-effect-free alert.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any context about which workflows (e.g. after scaffold_project or run_checks) warrant a notification. The only guidance is a fragment about which URL domains are supported, which is parameter-level, not usage-level.

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