sassy_toast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral details like platform-specific routing (Windows toast, macOS osascript, Linux notify-send), which gives the agent useful context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if notify-send is missing). Since the tool is non-destructive and simple, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 sentences: the first states the main action, the second provides use case and routing details. No fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core 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?

For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and platform behavior. It doesn't explain return values, but that's likely covered by the output schema. It's complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool, though some edge-case behavior (e.g., duration validation) isn't specified.

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 add meaning. It mentions 'duration: short or long', aligning with the schema's default and adding a hint about valid values. The 'title' and 'message' parameters are self-explanatory from their names, but the description doesn't clarify any formatting or constraints (e.g., max length). The added value is minimal, hence a score of 3.

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 opens with 'Show a desktop notification' – a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sassy_screenshot or sassy_desktop_state by focusing on notifications, and the platform routing details further clarify its scope.

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?

It explicitly states a use case: 'Useful for alerting when a long-running task completes.' This gives clear context for when to employ the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple notification tool, this is sufficient guidance.

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