send_notification

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (which are absent). It details the fallback mechanism, its confirmed failure (no visible notification), and advises on practical handling. This level of transparency is exemplary for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary action but becomes verbose with detailed fallback behavior and testing results. While the extra information is valuable, it could be more concise. Still, every sentence contributes to behavioral transparency.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and error handling. Although it covers the fallback failure well, the overall context for an agent to invoke correctly is insufficient.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema has low coverage (33%) with only two parameters described (icon and timeout_ms). The remaining four parameters (title, body, urgency, app_name) lack any explanation in the description, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 explicitly states the tool sends a desktop notification via notify-send with a fallback mechanism. It clearly identifies the action (send notification) and the method (notify-send with Hyprland fallback), distinguishing it from any sibling tools which are unrelated to 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?

The description provides clear guidance: it describes when to use (to send desktop notifications) and what to do if notify-send is unavailable (treat as non-functional). Although it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide usage.

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