Suzu (鈴) - Claude Code Notification Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Display') for debugging purposes, which suggests it's likely safe and non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like whether it shows sensitive data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description adds basic context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the core purpose and context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does and its debugging context, but doesn't explain what the configuration output looks like or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for more complete guidance about the expected output format.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('current Suzu configuration'), and specifies the context ('for debugging'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the debugging focus provides some implicit distinction from configuration tools like configure_custom_sounds.

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 implies usage context ('for debugging') which suggests when this tool might be appropriate, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The debugging context is helpful but lacks specificity about when this is the right choice among sibling tools.

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