zeph_notify

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and open world effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that long bodies are automatically uploaded as a file, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence states core purpose, second adds usage examples and a key behavioral note. No redundant words, front-loaded with important information.

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 notification tool (5 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and the file upload behavior. It lacks details on return value or error cases, but is adequate for most agents given the 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%, but the description adds rich context: explains priority enum usage ('urgent' for critical, 'low' for background), describes targetDeviceId behavior (omit for default/all), and notes file upload for long bodies. Adds significant value beyond schema.

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 it sends a one-way push notification to user devices, with specific use cases like task completion, errors, or status updates. This distinguishes it from siblings like zeph_ask (two-way) and zeph_broadcast (different broadcast mechanism).

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 gives explicit usage context (inform about task completion, errors, status updates) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like zeph_ask or zeph_broadcast. Still provides solid guidance.

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