ecp_notifications_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' suggests read-only behavior, but the description never states whether fetching notifications alters read status, how results are ordered or paginated, or what side effects might occur. This ambiguity matters in a notification API with sibling mark-read and delete tools.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or unnecessary repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits important parameter semantics and behavioral detail that could have been included without bloating the text.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool invocation. An agent can guess the basic unfiltered list behavior but cannot confidently interpret the `unread` filter or know what a successful response looks like. This is adequate only for the most trivial use case.

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?

The only parameter, `unread`, is entirely undocumented at both the schema and description level, with schema description coverage at 0%. The description adds no meaning about whether `unread: true` means 'only unread notifications', includes the read flag, or filters in some other way. There is no compensating detail for this low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('this account's notifications'), making the operation clearly a retrieval operation. It is distinct from sibling notification mutators like ecp_notifications_mark_read and ecp_notifications_delete, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the literal statement of what the tool does. There is no mention of when to prefer this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context around prerequisites such as authentication or account scope. An agent is left to infer the appropriate call context.

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