notify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses that the tool is non-playback-affecting, that the icon and display time are optional, that defaults exist (default icon, 5000ms), and that Kodi clamps small values. That is solid disclosure of side effects and edge behavior for a UI-affecting tool, though it does not state whether the toast is queued, whether it blocks, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping, then parameters. Tight and waste-free overall, though the trailing return-shape sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema and is the weakest-earning clause.

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?

With 5 params at 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and no nested objects, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, playback-neutral scope, parameter defaults, and clamping behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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 every parameter (image, title, message, instance, displaytime) is already fully documented in the schema, including the info/warning/error keywords and the ms unit. The description largely restates those same facts rather than adding syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show a notification toast on the Kodi box's screen') and immediately disambiguates from the entire playback-oriented sibling set with 'Doesn't touch playback.' An agent can identify this as the non-playback UI-notification tool without opening the schema.

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 negative scoping statement ('Doesn't touch playback') tells the agent when this tool is appropriate relative to nowplaying/play/pause/etc., and the description implies this is for user-facing status messaging. However, it never names an explicit alternative or a positive trigger condition, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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