notify

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it displays a notification, with no mention of side effects (e.g., whether sound plays), blocking behavior, permission requirements, or whether the notification is system-level or in-app. While it does not contradict anything, it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Display a notification to the user'. It conveys the core action immediately with no redundant words or filler, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 no output schema and a fully documented parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not explaining what kind of notification is shown, whether it blocks, or how it relates to the sibling progress tools. Given the simplicity, a short description is acceptable, but the missing usage context prevents a higher score.

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 description coverage is 100%, as every parameter (title, message, sound) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, but because the schema already provides full details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate.

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 'Display a notification to the user' uses a specific verb (Display), names the resource (notification), and specifies the recipient (user). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling progress-related tools (start_progress, update_progress, complete_progress), which are about tracking progress rather than showing a standalone notification.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual usage hints, such as whether it should be used alongside progress tools or for alerts. This is a clear gap.

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