vibemk_test_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Send test notification' without revealing whether it actually delivers a real notification, what happens on failure, or any impact on the system. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely sends something externally.

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 very short and free of fluff, but it also lacks substantive content. The second phrase 'Send test notification' is nearly a repetition of the first. It's concise but not structured to front-load critical information, and it doesn't earn its place by adding new value.

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 test tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It also doesn't clarify what 'contact' means (email, phone, etc.) or whether the notification is real. The tool is functionally incomplete for an agent to use with confidence.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (contact, message), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Send test notification'. It identifies the tool's purpose as sending a test notification, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that handle actual Checkmk operations. However, it doesn't specify what kind of test or what 'notification' entails (e.g., email, push, etc.), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or when to prefer it over similar testing tools like vibemk_test_direct_url or vibemk_test_all_endpoints. The agent gets no help deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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