open_notifications

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

The description discloses the basic action and target, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on platform-specific behavior, prerequisites (e.g., screen must be on), side effects, or failure modes. This is minimal 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is efficiently written with no unnecessary words. While it is short, it is not tautological and communicates the core operation clearly.

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 low complexity, a short description might suffice, but the complete absence of parameter semantics and usage context makes it insufficient. The output schema exists, but the description does not reference any return value or behavior. The tool is not fully specified for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 schema has a single 'device' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no information about the device parameter, such as expected format, allowed values, or how it affects behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pull down') and clearly identifies the resource ('notification shade or iOS Notification Center'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notifications and clear_notifications, which perform different actions on notifications.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where get_notifications or clear_notifications would be more appropriate, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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