show_popup_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses 'notify-send/dunst' which implies system-level notification behavior, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, error handling, or platform dependencies. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with practical guidance.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides basic completeness but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and when to use it at a high level, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or integration with the sibling tool. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for full understanding.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'message' as notification content, 'urgency' with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show a popup notification using notify-send/dunst.' It specifies the verb ('show'), resource ('popup notification'), and implementation method. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'display_polybar_message' beyond mentioning 'popup' vs. 'polybar' in names, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for notifying the user when an operation is complete or when waiting for user input.' This gives context on when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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