scf_get_notifications

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's added value is modest: it scopes results to the current caller and clarifies that risk_acceptance_expired is a risk-type alert and control_validation_due a control-type alert. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or read/unread state beyond the parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists contents. The parenthetical '(a risk)' / '(a control)' clarifications are useful but slightly noisy; overall it is efficient with little waste.

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 two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and annotations declaring read-only behavior, the description covers the essentials. The lack of an output schema is partly offset by the enumerated notification types, though pagination and result ordering remain unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% (limit and unread_only are both documented inline with defaults and ranges), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, default, or semantics beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the caller's notifications') and then enumerates the notification categories it returns (assignments, comments, status changes, alerts), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (scf_mark_notifications_read), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'the caller's notifications' implies a personal inbox use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as scf_mark_notifications_read or scf_get_org_work_queue, and no exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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