Send a safe Omarchy notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is safe (title), returns an ID, and intentionally disables clicking, remote images, and arbitrary notify-send options. This is valuable, though it does not mention any side effects like persistence or blocking behavior. Overall, it gives a clear safety profile without contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return value; the second lists exclusions. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, and with sparse parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of glyph or urgency, nor does it mention that the returned ID could be used with notification_dismiss or notification_time. The safety exclusions are useful, but an agent still lacks enough context to confidently craft a correct call beyond the required headline.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only headline has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning for glyph, urgency, or description. The unsupported-features note hints at safety but does not explain what each parameter controls. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics largely inferred from names and types.

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 states a specific action (send), the resource (local desktop notification), and the return value (daemon-assigned ID). It also explicitly lists what is unsupported, distinguishing it from more permissive notification tools. The title reinforces the safe scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this is for sending local notifications, but it does not explicitly point to alternatives like notification_dismiss or osd_show, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The unsupported features give some guardrails, but there is no clear 'use X instead' guidance for other notification-related sibling tools.

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