Suzu (鈴) - Claude Code Notification Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Set up') but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires authentication, overwrites existing sounds, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Set up custom sounds from Spotify, YouTube, or local files') earns its place by specifying the action and sources.

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 complexity (configuration tool with 3 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, success/failure responses, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies system settings, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters relate to sound sources and types, but it doesn't explain interactions (e.g., how 'value' varies by 'source'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Set up') and the resource ('custom sounds'), specifying the sources (Spotify, YouTube, local files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_spotify_tokens' or 'test_sound' by focusing on configuration rather than authentication or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'show_config' might be related), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tokens for Spotify/YouTube), exclusions (e.g., not for system sounds), or comparisons to siblings like 'configure_spotify_tokens' or 'test_sound'. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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