Check notification setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that it probes OS-level tool availability and returns setup instructions, but it stops short of characterizing the diagnostic result (pass/fail granularity, error modes) — no output schema exists, so this is a real gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action ('Diagnose desktop notification support') before the elaboration. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what it checks and where it applies. The one missing piece is what the caller gets back (per-platform pass/fail detail vs. free-form instructions), which matters more here because no output schema documents the return value.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the tool is platform-scoped and argument-free.

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 specific verb and resource ('Diagnose desktop notification support', 'Checks if required OS tools are available') plus the platform scope (macOS, Linux, Windows). It is clear on its own, but it does not name or contrast with neighboring tools such as test_notification, configure_alerts, or check_clipboard_setup, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the natural read is 'run this to diagnose whether notifications can work before trying test_notification', but the description never says when to call it versus those siblings or what to do with the result. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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