test_notification_policy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'verify routing' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a real notification is sent), prerequisites, or retry/mutation behavior. The agent lacks safety information.

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?

A single sentence of 13 words, with no redundancy. Every word is essential and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (though details unknown), the description is complete enough. It identifies the tool's role among many siblings. However, it could mention the response value (e.g., status code) briefly.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain the 'policy_id' parameter, though the purpose sentence implies it relates to the notification policy. This minimal connection adds little beyond the schema's type and requirement.

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?

Description clearly states the action (send a test dispatch) and the resource (notification policy's routing), distinguishing it from sibling test tools like test_alert_channel. The verb and objective are specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other test tools (e.g., test_alert_channel, test_webhook). The context signals list many test siblings, but the description provides no criteria for choosing this one.

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