Notify Agent

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds that 'The server owns topics and credentials,' hinting at authentication/ownership but not detailing side effects, failure modes, or rate limits. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra behavioral 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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding address-format guidance. It is efficient with no redundant phrases. Slightly more detail on expected outcomes would not hurt, but the current length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 has an output schema, so return value details are not required. However, the description does not mention potential errors, retry behavior, or what happens when the agent is not found. Given the five parameters and the non-trivial address semantics, a bit more context on usage conditions would improve 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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the name parameter's dual format (full address vs bare localpart), but this is already documented in the schema's parameter description. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action ('Wake a named agent') and the resource (agent) via a server-side route. It is distinct from sibling tools like notify_user and notify_check, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'wake' conveys a specific behavioral nuance.

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 guidance on address format (full identity vs bare localpart) and notes legacy compatibility, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over notify_user or notify_check, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation based on the target type. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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