Test notification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this triggers an action but is non-destructive. The description adds that the effect is a real desktop notification gated by OS permissions, which is useful context, but says nothing about expected output, failure modes, or whether the notification is visible to the user only.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the purpose comes first and the prerequisite guidance follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential context: what it does, what it depends on, and what to run first. The only gap is what a successful versus failed verification looks like.

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 single 'sound' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its default. The description adds nothing about it, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Send') plus resource ('test desktop notification') and the stated goal (verify OS permissions are correctly configured). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_notification_setup, which it explicitly references as the diagnostic counterpart.

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 states the context of use (verifying OS permission configuration) and names a prerequisite tool, 'Use check_notification_setup first to diagnose any issues.' That is explicit routing guidance. It does not state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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