Claude Code Notification Hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's proactive/automatic nature ('AUTOMATICALLY send', 'Claude should proactively use') which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention delivery method, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if the notification fails - significant gaps for a notification 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second provides usage examples, third gives UX rationale. However, the second sentence is somewhat long with multiple examples, slightly reducing readability.

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?

For a notification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral details. It doesn't explain what 'success notifications' look like, where they're sent, or what the tool returns. The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing structural information.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the 'task' parameter should describe significant completions, but this is already covered by the schema's description field.

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 with specific verbs ('send success notifications') and resources ('when any significant task completes successfully'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on success notifications rather than errors or user actions, and provides concrete examples (builds, tests, file operations) that clarify scope.

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 proactively use this for' lists specific scenarios (builds finishing, tests passing, etc.), and 'Always notify users of completion for better UX' gives a clear when-to-use principle. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on success scenarios rather than errors or user actions.

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