Task Status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effect — an audible and visual alert surfaced to the user, a user-visible external effect — which is the most important behavioral fact. It says nothing about whether the call blocks, whether it needs user permissions, whether notifications can be throttled, or whether repeated calls spam the user.

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?

Structurally, the payload is a single specific verb-plus-effect sentence with the coercion stripped away. Everything before that final sentence — emoji headers, numbered 'mandatory' directives — is padding that repeats the same instruction four times without adding information. It is a one-sentence definition wrapped in roughly six sentences of noise.

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 one-parameter notification tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential who-and-what: a notification is emitted to the user when processing starts or finishes. It omits whether the call is blocking, how frequently it may be called without annoying the user, and what distinguishes a start notification from a completion one. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one optional parameter with a default and 100% schema description coverage ('Message describing the state of the task'), so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds no meaning about what the message is used for in the notification, how it is rendered, or what happens when it is omitted. Baseline 3 applies given complete schema coverage.

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 one substantive sentence states the action: it 'Sends notifications (sound and visual) for the user' and alerts users when processing starts or completes. That is a concrete verb and effect, but the name/title 'task_status' suggests status reporting rather than notification, and the actual purpose is buried at the bottom under four numbered directives. An agent has to dig to learn what the tool does.

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 does specify invocation timing (start of every response, before other tools, at end of conversations), so there is explicit guidance. However, it is blanket 'ALWAYS call' guidance with no when-not-to-use condition, no alternatives, and no acknowledgment that unconditional invocation is rarely appropriate. The guidance is over-broad to the point of being misleading rather than helpful.

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