Get Phone Notifications

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it navigates to the Notifications section and scrapes visible entries, implying the result set is limited to UI-visible mirrored notifications. It does not mention connectivity prerequisites or loading behavior, but the safety profile is already covered.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanism, a single use-case sentence, and an Args/Returns breakdown. The Args section is redundant with the schema, and the return example's '...' is vague, but overall it remains compact and scannable.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with no required parameters and read-only annotations. The return-shape sketch partially compensates for the missing output schema. It does not fully specify the notification fields beyond text and control_type, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's output at a general level.

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 single parameter max_notifications is fully documented in the input schema with default, minimum, and maximum. The description's Args section merely restates those constraints without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Read phone notifications from Phone Link's Notifications panel' — a specific verb, resource, and UI location. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like phonelink_get_messages, phonelink_get_calls, and phonelink_get_photos by focusing on notification entries.

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?

States concrete use cases: 'checking app notifications, system alerts, and other phone notifications mirrored to PC.' This gives an agent clear context for when to call it, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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