Notify with optional audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the two side effects (audio playback and desktop notification) and notes that audio is optional, but it does not describe return behavior, failure modes, or whether optional audio affects execution when omitted. The core behavior is clear, though not deeply specified.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the action and the optional nature of the audio component.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only summarizes the action. It omits parameter semantics, when to choose this over sibling tools, and behavioral expectations beyond the basic side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 compensate, but it only adds meaning for the audio parameter ('optional' and 'built-in'). It does not clarify title, message, or subtitle, and the enum value 'zako' is left unexplained.

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 states a specific behavior: play an optional built-in audio track and show a desktop notification. This clearly identifies the tool as the combined variant, unlike siblings notify_play_audio and notify_desktop, and removes ambiguity about what 'notify' does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives such as notify_desktop for notification-only use or notify_play_audio for audio-only use, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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