notify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only paraphrases the name. It does not disclose whether calling this mutates server state, what the resulting filter state becomes, whether the change is persistent or per-session, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 mutation-style control tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description leaves key questions open: what the call does to the notification filter and how success is observed. The absence of any return-value or state semantics makes it under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to explain arguments, though it could have clarified how a parameterless tool 'controls' a filter.

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 names a resource ('server-to-client push filter for new-message notifications') and a verb ('Control'), which is more than a tautology. But 'Control' is vague about the actual operation — is this a toggle, an enable/disable, a query of current state? With zero parameters there is no way to infer the action, and the name 'notify' plus siblings like 'watch', 'wait', 'poll', and 'sync' leave the boundary unclear.

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 invoke this versus alternatives. Given siblings such as 'watch', 'poll', 'wait', and 'sync' that all touch message delivery behavior, an agent has no basis to choose 'notify' over any of them. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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