read_notifications

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

The description discloses the open/read/close sequence and notes that the shade can be left open via close_after=false. Since annotations are absent, this is helpful, but it still omits details such as whether notifications are cleared or whether the operation has any side effects beyond UI state.

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 very short, front-loaded with the core procedure, and followed by a single parameter note. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition beyond the duplicated Args 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?

With one optional, well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for a simple UI action. The remaining gaps are minor: it does not say what happens if the shade is already open or empty, nor does it explicitly route usage away from read_screen.

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%, and the description's Args section mostly restates the schema's description of close_after. It adds no new semantic detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise procedure: open the notification shade, read its contents, then close it. This clearly targets the notification shade resource and distinguishes it from siblings like read_screen or take_screenshot.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose read_notifications over read_screen or other sibling tools. The only conditional advice concerns the close_after parameter, not tool selection.

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