send_push_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the fire-and-forget nature, the instruction to continue if the push fails, and the fallback mechanism, all critical behavioral traits.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, including the fallback instruction.

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 description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly: when to call, what to pass, how to handle failure, and alternative via bash. It leaves no essential gaps given the simple schema and absence of output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each status enum to real-world situations and specifying that the summary should be a 'one-line summary,' going beyond the schema's generic text.

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 identifies the action ('push notification') and the target ('user's phone'), and the status list specifies the exact scopes. It fully distinguishes itself from any potential alternatives by enumerating the three trigger situations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('CALL IT YOURSELF — never ask permission') and gives three concrete scenarios with definitions. It also provides a fallback command for when the tool is unavailable, making usage guidance comprehensive.

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