Listar notificações

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds value by specifying the exact GET endpoints and the conditional behavior of include_unread_count. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but for a read-only list tool the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 one fua sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds the optional call condition. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or duplication of the parameter descriptions.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description manages both endpoints and the default behavior. It does not describe the return payload shape beyond 'notificações' and 'contagem', but that is largely inferable from the endpoints; the simplicity of the tool makes this complete enough.

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 both parameters already have descriptions. The description enriches include_unread_count by explaining the live trigger: it is included when include_unread_count is not false, i.e. by default or true, making the parameter's effective behavior clearer than the schema's simple 'true (default)' note.

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 the action, resource, endpoint, and optional second call: 'Lista as últimas notificações (GET /api/notificacoes)' and 'inclui a contagem de não lidas (GET /api/notificacoes/contagem)'. It clearly distinguishes this list tool from siblings that target other resources (boards, tickets, cards, projects).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The purpose is self-evident, but the description does not say e.g. 'use this to check notifications or unread counts' or point to a sibling alternative if a different level of detail is needed.

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