notify_user

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the message is transient and non-intrusive ("short floating") on the canvas rather than a modal or a document change. It does not say whether the call blocks, whether the user must acknowledge it, or what happens if a notification is already displayed, which leaves real behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness, since a second clause about duration would have earned its place.

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 two-parameter UI utility with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and is close to sufficient. It still leaves the duration parameter undocumented and omits blocking/return behavior, so an agent must guess at how `seconds` behaves.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It never mentions the `seconds` parameter at all, and the word "short" only vaguely gestures at duration without connecting to that argument or explaining its default of 4.

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 gives a concrete verb and object ("Show a short floating message on the user's Krita canvas"), which is far more specific than a tautology and clearly identifies a user-facing notification. No sibling tool in the list performs notifications, so the tool is distinguishable in practice, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with anything.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other ways of surfacing information to the user, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use (transient status feedback) is only weakly implied by "short floating message."

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