Get notification settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no further behavioral details such as return format, fallback defaults, or the role of accountId. Without an output schema, this leaves the agent without critical information about what to expect.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. While efficient, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns its place as a clear statement of 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 getter, the description is minimal, but it omits explanation of accountId and the return value. With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate, making it incomplete for practical use.

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%, and the description only mentions 'peer' without explaining its format or meaning. The optional accountId parameter is entirely omitted, providing no semantic value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 'Return notification settings for a peer' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation scoped to a peer. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_notify_settings by focusing on retrieval rather than modification.

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 such as set_notify_settings or mute_peer. The description lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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