Get Notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the single most consequential trait: reads never mark notifications as seen. That preempts a real agent mistake (calling it repeatedly expecting the unread count to clear). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope stated first. The trailing pointer to 'the policy comment in server.py's implementation' is mild filler an agent cannot act on, but it does reinforce the non-mutation claim.

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 tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies scope and the key non-mutation guarantee. It is adequate, though an agent still has no guidance on volume, freshness, or when this overlaps with get_feed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the limit, its default, or the max of 50.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('list-only' notifications) plus the payload shape (unread count + latest rows), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closest-looking sibling, get_feed, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to check the notification bell. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_feed or other read siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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