list_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that 'Credentials are redacted', a meaningful privacy-relevant trait, and it clarifies the output content by mentioning which events each connection fires on. It does not discuss side effects or pagination, but for a parameterless read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise sentence of approximately 14 words. It front-loads the core function ('List notification connections') and includes only one additional useful fact about credential redaction. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: what is listed (notification connections), what detail is included (events each one fires on), and a key output trait (credentials redacted). It does not specify the exact response shape or field names, but for a simple list operation the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a specific resource 'notification connections' and adds the important detail 'which events each one fires on'. This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which relate to notifications.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling notification tools, so the intended usage is self-evident, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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