Claude Code Notification Hooks

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 describes the tool's proactive, intelligent behavior and general use cases, but lacks details on how notifications are sent (e.g., format, channels), what 'appropriate' means, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves key operational aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, and the second provides usage guidance. However, the all-caps 'SMART AUTO-NOTIFICATION' is slightly verbose, and the structure could be tighter by integrating the usage examples more seamlessly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or how parameters interact. For a tool with multiple siblings and no structured safety hints, more context on when to choose this over specific tools would enhance completeness.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'context' relates to 'todos_completed' or 'error_occurred'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 purpose: 'Intelligently analyze context and automatically send appropriate notifications.' It specifies the verb ('analyze' and 'send') and resource ('notifications'), and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it the 'primary notification tool.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate the 'smart auto-notification' mechanism from the more specific sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Claude should use this proactively for: task completion detection, error analysis, user action evaluation, progress updates.' It also states 'This is the primary notification tool - use it frequently to keep users informed,' which clearly positions it against the more specific sibling tools (send_error_notification, send_task_complete_notification, send_user_action_needed_notification).

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