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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool plays a sound and shows a message, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires user permissions, if it's synchronous or asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., interrupting other tasks), or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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 directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity (a notification action with user interaction) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error cases, or what happens after the notification (e.g., does it return a status?). For a tool that could have side effects or require specific conditions, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('message' and 'sound_type'), including defaults and an enum for 'sound_type'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of the message or sound types. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Play a notification sound and show a message when a task is completed.' It specifies the verb ('play' and 'show') and resource ('notification sound' and 'message'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'notify' or 'question_alert', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'notify' or 'question_alert'. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess when this specific notification method is appropriate.

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