bsky_get_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by cursor parameter), rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 3 parameters and output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and authentication requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, authentication requirement) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and auth need. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more parameter guidance and behavioral context to be truly complete for an authenticated API call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about any of the 3 parameters (limit, cursor, acting_handle). The description doesn't explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the notification retrieval. This is inadequate given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('通知一覧' - notifications list) with the scope ('ログインユーザー' - logged-in user). It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_get_timeline or bsky_get_profile by specifying notifications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notification-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description mentions authentication requirement ('要認証'), which is a basic usage condition. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsky_get_timeline for timeline updates or bsky_get_profile for user info. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparison is included.

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