notify_dev

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions platform limitation ('Supports Linux') which is useful context, but doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., does it block execution, what happens on non-Linux systems, error behavior, or visual characteristics of the notification). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important platform context. There's zero wasted language 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and platform constraint. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more about parameter usage and behavioral expectations. The existence of an output schema means it doesn't need to describe return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'message' parameter at all, providing no semantic information about what the message should contain, format expectations, or length limits. However, with only one simple string parameter, the baseline is higher than for complex tools.

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 action ('Sends a desktop notification') and specifies the target resource ('desktop notification'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_terminal' or 'write_code' which are completely different operations, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation here.

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 provides minimal usage context by mentioning platform support ('Supports Linux (notify-send)'), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or comparison with other notification methods.

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