task_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool sends notifications (sound and visual) and its mandatory nature. However, missing details like side effects (e.g., does it interrupt users?), rate limits, or permissions needed. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Overly verbose with repeated warnings and instructions. Could be concise: single sentence for usage guidelines and a brief parameter explanation. Use of emoji and formatting adds unnecessary length.

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 simple notification tool with one optional param and output schema, description covers purpose, usage instructions, parameter semantics, and return type. However, output schema exists but description only gives vague 'Status information' — still adequate.

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?

Only one parameter 'message' with no schema description (0% coverage). Description adds value by explaining its purpose ('Message describing state of the task') and providing examples ('Started processing', 'Task completed'). Also mentions default 'Task completed' from schema.

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 the tool sends notifications (sound and visual) to alert users of LLM processing state. The verb 'sends' and resource 'notifications' are specific. No sibling tools for differentiation, but purpose is unmistakable despite name 'task_status' being slightly ambiguous.

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?

Extremely explicit instructions: call at start of every response, before other tools, at end of conversations, even if no other tools used. No ambiguity about when to use.

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