spraay_notify_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a cost disclosure ($0.001 USDC) and confirms it is a status check, which is non-destructive. This extra context is valuable and does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the essential information (action, resource, input, cost) with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple nature of the tool (one input, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary details: what it does, what input is required, where that input comes from, and cost. It is complete without needing to describe return values due to the presence of an output schema.

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?

The schema describes the 'id' parameter with full coverage (100%). The description adds concrete context: it specifies the origin of the ID (from spraay_notify_email or spraay_notify_sms) and provides an example format ('ntf_abc123'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Check delivery status'), the resource ('previously sent email or SMS notification'), and the input ('by notification ID'). It distinguishes from sibling notification tools that send rather than check status.

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 implicitly guides use by mentioning the ID comes from spraay_notify_email or spraay_notify_sms, indicating it should be called after sending. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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