List Notifications

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly explains a non-obvious default: credentials in `config` are withheld and `redactedConfigKeys` lists the withheld field names. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the security-relevant redaction behavior is valuable and clearly disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most relevant operational detail without repetition or filler.

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 list tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned, highlights the key id-based usage, and discloses redaction behavior. It omits only non-essential details like pagination or rate limits.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the `config` redaction and the sufficiency of channel ids, but it does not materially expand on the `includeSecrets` parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all configured notification channels,' followed by concrete examples (Slack, ntfy, Discord, email, webhooks). This clearly identifies it as a read/list operation and distinguishes it from siblings like addNotification, updateNotification, and deleteNotification.

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 phrase 'To attach a channel to a monitor you only need its id' provides a concrete use case and tells the agent when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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