get_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but provides no further behavioral details (e.g., permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the notification doesn't exist). The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself adds minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but at the cost of missing necessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks structure and sufficient information for effective tool usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return structure, the optional workspace parameter, or any constraints (e.g., id format). Given the tool has two parameters and no nested objects, the description should provide more context to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description doesn't clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema shows. While 'id' implies the UUID, the 'workspace' parameter is not explained. The description mentions 'by UUID' but does not name the parameter or explain optional parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Description clearly states the function: 'Get one notification by UUID.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (notification), and the method (by UUID) helps distinguish it from siblings like list_notifications or mark_notification_read. However, it could be slightly more explicit about uniquely identifying the notification.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there's no mention that this tool is for fetching a single notification, while list_notifications retrieves all. The description lacks context about prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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