display_notification

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

The description discloses the platform (macOS) and the presentation style (banner), which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential permission requirements, transient nature of the banner, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but leaves some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key elements without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool's simplicity and the full schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content. It lacks information about permissions or return values, but for a display notification tool these are less critical and the overall context is adequately 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters and a default for title, so the description adds little beyond restating the fields. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Displays') and a clear resource ('native macOS banner notification'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clipboard or app control. It also lists the content types (title, subtitle, body text), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies usage for showing user-facing notifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is serviceable but does not actively guide the agent on decision-making.

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