apple_notification

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats 'Actions: send' from the schema and does not mention side effects, confirmation requirements for protected actions, or any operational details. The tool likely has the side effect of displaying a notification, but this is not explicitly disclosed beyond the verb 'send'.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, 'Actions: send' is redundant given the schema's enum constraint, adding minor noise. Overall, it remains appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a minimal phrase. It lacks contextual details such as what happens on send, whether the notification is interactive, or when the confirm parameter is necessary. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description does not give a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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%, so all five parameters (sound, title, action, confirm, message) are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond repeating the action enum, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Send macOS notifications' clearly identifies the tool's verb (send) and resource (macOS notifications), and it inherently distinguishes this tool from siblings like apple_brightness or apple_tts. Although 'Actions: send' is redundant, it does not obscure the core purpose.

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. It simply states the function without contextualizing usage, so the agent receives no decision support.

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