send_notification

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the notification is ephemeral, whether it requires user interaction, or whether it can be called repeatedly. It provides no value beyond what the annotations already convey, but it does not contradict them.

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 extremely concise: five words, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. While it sacrifices useful detail, it earns the words it uses. It could be richer, but it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe return values, success/failure behavior, or how optional parameters like urgency and app_name affect the notification. For a simple action tool this is somewhat acceptable, but the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves an agent guessing when optional fields are involved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the meaning, allowed values, or effects of 'urgency' or 'app_name'. The description mentions title and message only implicitly through the notification concept, leaving optional parameter semantics entirely undefined.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a desktop notification.' The word 'desktop' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like send_push_notification or send_test_email. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_push_notification or send_test_email. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and 'desktop notification' phrasing.

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