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 mentions 'test' but doesn't explain what happens during testing—e.g., does it play the sound audibly, log results, require specific permissions, or have side effects? This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely involves audio output or system interaction.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details like the sound types if needed for clarity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'testing' involves behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a sound-related tool, this lack of context leaves gaps in understanding its role and effects.

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 the parameter 'sound_type' fully documented via enum and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why these sound types are relevant or how they're used in testing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Test a specific sound configuration' clearly states the action (test) and target (sound configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what 'test' entails—does it play the sound, validate settings, or something else? It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_custom_sounds' (setup vs. testing), but lacks specificity on the verb's meaning.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for verifying sound settings after configuration (vs. 'configure_custom_sounds') or for general notifications (vs. 'notify' or 'question_alert'). Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent has minimal direction.

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