Publish 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 only states the action without mentioning any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or failure behavior. For a tool that sends a notification, this is minimal but not misleading; still, critical behavioral context is absent.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 13 parameters, but the schema documents all of them thoroughly. The description provides the basic operation context, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, there is no mention of typical usage patterns, error handling, or the requirement that 'topic' is effectively required (noted in the schema but not in the description). For a simple send operation, this is adequate but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Send a push notification to an ntfy topic.' It uses a specific verb (send), a resource (push notification), and a target (ntfy topic), which distinguishes it from sibling tools 'poll' and 'server_health' without needing further context.

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 implies usage context (when a notification needs to be sent) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusionary notes or references to sibling tools. The purpose is self-evident, but explicit guidance is missing.

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