notify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains dry_run returns the composed message without sending, documents default values for project and host, and specifies formatting constraints like plain Spanish, no Markdown, and no secrets.

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 efficiently organized as a field-by-field reference with the core purpose front-loaded. Each line earns its place and conveys concrete, non-redundant 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?

All six parameters are covered with defaults and content rules, an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required, and the description gives enough context to compose a correct notification. No critical gaps remain for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter (title, body, status, project, host, dry_run) receives meaningful guidance on format, defaults, examples, and allowed values beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Envía un aviso por Telegram al usuario', identifying a specific verb, resource, and channel, and clarifies the use case: a finished or blocked task. Even without sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it ('una tarea terminada o bloqueada') and describes the message format and status variants. There are no sibling tools or exclusions, so no alternative routing is needed.

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