zeph_notify

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

The description discloses that long bodies (>1KB) are automatically uploaded as a file, which is behavioral information beyond annotations. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true (external interaction), and the description aligns with these. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes a useful behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and the description does not mention return values or error handling. While the one-way notification likely returns a success status, this is not addressed. The automatic file upload behavior is noted but could be better integrated with expected outcomes.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the automatic file upload behavior for the 'body' parameter, which is not in the schema description. This provides meaningful context beyond the 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 the tool sends a one-way push notification and lists use cases (task completion, errors, status updates). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool zeph_broadcast, which may be similar.

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 provides when to use the tool (inform user about task completion, errors, status updates) but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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