send_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (push notification), the return value ('ok' or error string), and implies the action is non-destructive. It could mention potential failure modes (e.g., network issues, gateway unavailability) or idempotency, but for a simple notification tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by usage guidelines, then parameter descriptions. It is concise with no wasted words, and each sentence adds value.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and return value. No output schema is provided, but the return is described in text. The context signals (no siblings, simple schema) confirm this is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds rich context: for 'message' it advises 'Keep it one line and lead with what they'd act on', for 'title' it says 'Optional short bold title (e.g. the node or job name)', and for 'tag' it explains 'Which configured recipient group to send to (default "default")'. This far exceeds 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 'Push a short notification to the user's phone (Telegram) via the local gateway,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. Though no siblings are listed, it distinguishes itself well from any potential notification tools by specifying the channel and gateway.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to proactively reach the user when they may be away from the terminal...' with concrete examples (long-running task finished, build succeeded/failed, needing user decision) and a clear 'Do NOT use it for routine progress chatter or to echo an answer they are clearly watching.' This fully addresses when and 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.