Claude Code Notification Hooks

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 effectively describes the tool's proactive, urgent nature and UX importance, but lacks details on delivery mechanism (e.g., how notifications appear), user response handling, or potential side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could provide more operational context.

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 and immediately following with usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, though the final sentence about UX could be integrated more seamlessly. It avoids redundancy and maintains a clear, directive tone throughout.

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 strong context about when and why to use it, supported by concrete examples. It covers the tool's proactive nature and urgency well, though could benefit from more detail about notification behavior or response handling to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but contextually reinforces the purpose of 'action_needed' and 'urgency' through examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 urgent notifications') and resources ('when user input, decision, or immediate attention is required'), distinguishing it from siblings by emphasizing urgency and proactive use for user-blocking scenarios. It explicitly mentions use cases like file conflicts and permission requests, making the purpose highly specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('proactively use this for: file conflicts, permission requests, critical errors requiring user choice, or when waiting for user response before proceeding') and why ('Essential for good UX - notify users immediately when blocked'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on urgent, action-required scenarios rather than general notifications or errors.

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