get_notification_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently indicates a read-only listing behavior and what the output contains: every notification implementation and its fields. It does not describe filtering behavior, but the parameter schema covers that, and the tool's non-mutating nature is implied by 'List' and 'schema.'

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 sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a directly actionable use case. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter read-only schema tool, the description plus the fully documented parameter is adequate. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the tool returns. It could mention that omitting 'implementation' returns all schemas, but that is reasonably inferable from the parameter description and the wording 'every notification connection implementation.'

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 single parameter 'implementation' is fully described in the JSON schema with 100% coverage, including an example value. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's verb ('List') and resource ('every notification connection implementation Sonarr supports'), and it explicitly names the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is the template for create_notification, separating it from list_notifications and get_notification.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this as the template for create_notification.' It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but for a schema-introspection tool with no direct sibling counterpart, this is sufficient contextual guidance.

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