arch_send_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (notify-send), the target environment (Niri DE), and lists valid urgency values. However, it omits any mention of side effects, permissions, or failure conditions, which are relevant for a tool that interacts with the desktop environment.

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 two short sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second provides urgency values. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (4 params, one required) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and the parameter most likely to require clarification (urgency). The schema handles the remaining parameter details, making the description sufficiently 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'urgency' parameter by listing allowed values, while summary, body, and icon are not described in prose. Although those parameters are somewhat self-explanatory from the schema, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of coverage.

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 ('Send'), resource ('desktop notification'), and target ('Niri DE via notify-send'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like arch_systemctl or niri_get_workspaces, which serve different functions.

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 clearly implies usage: use this tool when you need to send a desktop notification on Niri. There are no alternative notification tools among siblings, so explicit exclusionary guidance is not necessary, though it stops short of stating 'when not to use'.

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