list_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds specific behavioral context by stating the tool does not mark notifications as read or empty the session queue. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying exactly what side effects are absent, which is useful for an agent deciding between this and mutating notification tools.

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 that front-loads the primary action and includes the important non-side-effect note. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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?

With rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and a simple parameter set, the description covers the core behavior. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics and lack of any mention of pagination or response format leave gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent without prior context.

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 provides no information about limit, offset, or status parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the default status 'unread' suggests filtering without explaining allowed values or pagination behavior. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb-resource action ('Lista notificaciones') and explicitly distinguishes this from mutating operations by noting it does not mark notifications as read or empty the session queue. This differentiates it from sibling tools that might handle notifications with side effects, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 implies a use case (viewing notifications without affecting their state) but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It gives some contextual signal via the non-mutation note, but no direct comparison to sibling list tools like list_announcements.

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