Notification-Tool

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 explaining side effects and behavior. 'Access' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify whether this modifies device state, clears notifications, requires permissions, or what the returned data looks like. For a tool with no structured safety annotations, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action ('Access') and the resource ('notifications'), making it appropriately concise for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is minimally adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not specify what the tool returns or whether accessing notifications has any side effects, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document nonexistent arguments.

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 clear verb ('Access') and a specific resource ('notifications seen on the device'), making the tool's primary function understandable. It is not confused with any sibling tool, as no other tool mentions notifications. However, 'Access' is slightly less precise than 'get' or 'list,' and the description does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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 implies that this tool should be used when an agent needs to retrieve or view notifications currently visible on the device. It does not state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, but there is no closely related sibling tool for notifications, so the implied usage is reasonable.

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