notify_demo_tool

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tool_list_changed triggers a re-fetch of tools by the client, and logging sends a message with customizable level and message. Demo nature is implied. Could mention side effects like potential client-side updates, but 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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and actions. No redundancy. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., separating logging and list_changed) but current form is acceptable and front-loaded.

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 simple demonstration tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the supported notification types. It lacks mention of its demo-only intent (e.g., not for production) but overall sufficient given low complexity.

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 100% and schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (type enum, level enum, message string). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what schema offers, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool demonstrates server-to-client notifications and specifically lists two actions: sending logging messages and triggering list_changed events. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from all sibling tools which focus on device commands, shells, and network operations.

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 this tool is for demonstration/testing of notifications. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the unique purpose is clear given all sibling tools serve different functions. A slight improvement would be direct guidance like 'Use this to test notification features'.

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