omni_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose grouping behavior, severity selection, and output shape (count + sample per source), which is useful. It does not mention read-only behavior, time-window defaults, ordering, or any side effects, leaving material gaps.

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 two short, information-dense sentences with the core grouping behavior front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: severity categories, grouping key, row format, and compactness are all communicated without 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?

The description conveys the essential output shape and aggregation behavior for a simple one-parameter tool. It is incomplete because it fails to explain the 'since' parameter, lacks any guidance about when to prefer this over omni_errors/omni_logs, and provides no safety or side-effect information in the absence of annotations.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'since' parameter at all. With one optional integer parameter present, the agent receives no guidance about its units, meaning, temporal reference, or default behavior, so parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 identifies the resource as a grouped feed of WARN/ERROR/FATAL issues, one row per source with count and sample, which conveys the tool's purpose. It stops short of a full 5 because it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not name sibling tools for contrast.

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 'compact issue feed' implies this is an aggregated summary view rather than a full log or raw error dump, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over omni_errors, omni_logs, or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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