notch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Does not steal focus and needs no window' and explains that readouts must be resolved via notch_done or notch_error instead of vanishing. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention TTL expiry behavior (which the schema's ttl param already covers).

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It includes usage guidance and behavioral caveats without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with 5 fully described parameters and no output schema. The description supplies crucial usage context (when to call, how to resolve the readout) and behavioral notes, making it sufficiently complete. It could mention potential side-effects or edge cases, but for this tool's simplicity, the coverage is strong.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only minor context like 'Short label' for text, which is already implied. It does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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's function: 'Show or update a status readout in the notch.' It uses a specific verb ('Show or update') and resource ('status readout in the notch'), and distinguishes it from siblings like notch_done and notch_error by instructing to finish with those tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call when starting long-running work and again as it progresses.' It also provides a clear follow-up instruction to always finish with notch_done or notch_error. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives for other scenarios.

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