cork_get_compliance_notification_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the operation is a 'List' (implying read-only) but does not mention pagination behavior, response size limits, potential filters, or any side effects. The extra clause describes response content, not behavior.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The trailing clause adds useful specificity without being verbose, though it partially restates 'notification and alerting rules.'

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 six parameters, half lacking descriptions, and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not mention paginated list responses, the meaning of optional filters, or the structure of the returned rules. A tool this complex needs more operational 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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate for undescribed parameters like inbox_uuid, device_uuid, and domain_uuid. It does not explain their meaning or how they refine the query; the phrase 'on a client's assets' only hints at asset filtering. No parameter-level insight is added.

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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('notification and alerting rules configured for compliance events'), and distinguishes itself from sibling event-listing tools by clarifying that it returns rules, not the events themselves. The dash clause adds specificity about event types and routing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cork_get_compliance_events or cork_get_compliance_event_types. The description implies a use case (retrieving notification rules) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.

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