notify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'auto-detected project context,' which adds useful context about behavior beyond basic notification sending. However, it lacks details on permissions required, system dependencies, or how the auto-detection works, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with the macOS system.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Send a macOS notification') and adds the distinctive feature ('with auto-detected project context'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, macOS system interaction) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on error handling, return values, or system requirements, which could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'auto-detected project context' relates to parameters like 'subtitle.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 specific action ('Send a macOS notification') and the key feature ('with auto-detected project context'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a macOS-specific notification tool with contextual awareness, which is precise and actionable.

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 for macOS notifications with project context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other notification methods or platforms). Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but it still offers only implied context without exclusions or prerequisites.

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