Retrieve notification settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond stating the HTTP method (GET) and that it queries a specific endpoint. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, but the first two are nearly identical ('Retrieve notification settings.' followed by 'Retrieve notification settings for the owner with the provided ID.'). It could be more concise.

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 read tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and the API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete.

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 schema describes ownerId as 'The ID of the workspace to return resources for'. The description adds clarity that the owner ID is not a resource ID, providing important disambiguation beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it retrieves notification settings for an owner. It specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'notification settings for the owner'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like render_patch_owner_notification_settings.

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 provides guidance that an owner ID is required and that it is not a resource ID. It implies usage for retrieving settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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