send_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. It exceeds it by disclosing a key behavioral nuance: suppression under Do Not Disturb, Focus, or screen recording, and that the call still succeeds. This tells an agent not to assume the banner was visually displayed from a successful return.

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, each with distinct purpose: the first states the core function; the second adds a critical caveat. There is no redundant wording, and the caveat is placed after the main action for clarity.

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 simple notification tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important behavioral caveat. Schema covers all parameters. There are no nested objects or return values needing elaboration, so the definition is complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The schema already documents title, message, and sound, including truncation limits.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Display a macOS notification banner.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the other macOS automation siblings, none of which are about 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison is provided. However, the unique purpose ('Display a macOS notification banner') implies the appropriate trigger, and no sibling tool competes with this responsibility. With no exclusions or conditions, usage guidance remains in implied territory.

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