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 meaningfully discloses that secret field values are masked and that the 'fields' array is omitted, which is non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know. It does not mention other response characteristics, but for a simple list operation this is substantial useful transparency.

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 efficiently written sentence with a second clause that adds essential behavioral detail. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides the caveat and sibling routing without redundancy.

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 parameterless enumeration tool, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, that secret values are masked, that fields are omitted, and where to get them. No output schema exists, but the description still gives enough for an agent to invoke this tool and interpret the key limitation of the response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related claims.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'configured notification connections,' which is specific and distinct from sibling operations like get_notification. It also explicitly references get_notification as the complement for retrieving the omitted fields array, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 usage context by noting that the 'fields' array is intentionally omitted and directing the user to get_notification for that detail. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative is named and the condition for using it is implicit.

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