list_notifications

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it lists 'recent' notifications and types, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, what qualifies as recent, or whether data is real-time. The output schema exists but is not described, so behavioral expectations are unclear.

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 short and front-loaded, with two clear parts: the action and types, then the argument. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a list for types), but overall efficient.

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 the output schema exists, the description doesn't need full return details. However, it omits important context like pagination, ordering (by date?), and what 'recent' means. For a simple list tool with one param, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit: Max results (default 20)', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 purpose: 'List recent notifications' and enumerates types (HITL decisions, workflow alerts, system messages). This is specific and unique among sibling tools; no other tool lists notifications generically, so it is well-differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites, filtering beyond limit, or when not to use it. For example, if an agent wants to mark notifications read, they would need to infer that from sibling names, not from this description.

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