send_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies the side effect of sending a push notification and scopes it to paired devices, but it does not mention what happens if no devices are paired, delivery guarantees, failure behavior, or other operational constraints.

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 two short sentences that both earn their place: one states the operation and target, the other gives the usage trigger. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 core purpose and parameter semantics are well covered, and the schema documents all parameters fully. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about success/failure responses, prerequisites like having paired devices, or post-send behavior. This is acceptable for a simple send tool but not fully 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 100%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline 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 action ('send a push notification') and the target ('paired devices'), distinguishing it from the sibling device-management tools. It also states the triggering user intent ('asks to be notified about something'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks to be notified about something'). It does not describe exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs notification sending, so the guidance is sufficient.

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