scf_get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that notifications include the listed types, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, effects on read status, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and lists the content. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is mostly complete. It could hint at pagination (e.g., 'paginated results') but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function. Missing details on ordering or default behavior are minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (limit, unread_only). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely listing notification types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the job.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('the caller's notifications'), and lists concrete notification types (new assignments, comments, status changes, system alerts). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other domains like organizations, evidence, or controls.

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 usage for retrieving notifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the sibling tools are mostly unrelated, context on when to prefer this tool (e.g., for user-facing alerts) is implicit.

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