get_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the response includes the full 'fields' array of implementation-specific settings. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid) or explicitly confirm that the operation has no side effects, though 'Get' strongly implies a read.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get one notification connection') and adds the most important detail (inclusion of full fields array) in a parenthetical. No filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned and highlights the important detail about the fields array. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape could help, but the low complexity and clear single parameter make this adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as 'notification connection id'. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter format, constraints, or examples; it only reinforces the purpose of the retrieved resource. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one notification connection'), and explicitly highlights the distinguishing feature: it includes the full 'fields' array with implementation-specific settings. This differentiates it from list_notifications and get_notification_schema without needing to inspect either tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a single notification connection is needed with its full fields/settings. It implies that list_notifications may omit these details, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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