test_notification

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by noting it sends a test notification, which is a non-destructive side effect. It could mention that the notification is triggered regardless of existing permissions, but the current text is sufficient for an agent.

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 two short sentences, with the action and purpose in the first sentence and a usage hint in the second. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, and prerequisite steps. Sibling tools are not needed to understand this tool.

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% and the only parameter 'sound' is already well-described in the schema with 'Include a sound alert in the test notification.' The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Send a test desktop notification' as the action and specifies the resource. It also clarifies the purpose: 'to verify that OS permissions are correctly configured.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_notification_setup (diagnostic) and configure_alerts (configuration).

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 advises using check_notification_setup first to diagnose issues, providing clear guidance on when and in what sequence to use the tool. This helps the agent understand proper usage.

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