send_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does add sound name choices and notes that None makes the notification silent, but it omits macOS permission requirements, error behavior for invalid sounds, and what the function returns or whether it blocks. These are notable gaps for a side-effectful tool.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every line contributes necessary information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity, a simple parameter set, and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials needed for invocation. It lacks only usage-sibling differentiation and permission caveats, which prevents a 5 but keeps it sufficiently complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section compensates. It lists all four parameters and adds real meaning: sound includes examples and explains 'None for silent,' while title/message/subtitle are plainly defined. This goes beyond the schema's minimal property names and defaults.

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 opens with 'Send a macOS notification,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like say_text (speech) and send_alert (likely a dialog) even without naming alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions are provided. The description only states what the tool does and lists arguments, leaving it to the agent to infer context from siblings like send_alert and say_text.

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