get_notification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, ensuring safe read behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the notification remains unread after retrieval, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation. It also outlines the response structure (actor, project, etc.), providing transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey all necessary information without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read notification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it returns (including links), and a key behavioral detail (unread). This is complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation.

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 only parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'by ID' without adding any meaning about the ID's source, format, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so, missing an opportunity to clarify parameter semantics.

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 identifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'one in-app notification', and specifies the included contextual links (actor, project, activity, related-resource). It also distinguishes this tool from list_notifications by focusing on a single known 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this tool 'after list_notifications when full context for a known notification is required'. Also implicitly advises against using it to mark notifications as read since it states 'it remains unread', guiding the agent to alternative sibling tools like mark_notification_read.

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