List notifications

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: listing does not mark notifications read, and this server has no tool that does. It also discloses the slimmed return shape and the meaning of total, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded: it states what is listed, the default filter, the return shape, pagination, and the non-mutating behavior. Every sentence contributes actionable information without repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and explains total, so the agent knows what to expect from the response. Combined with the explicit pagination and read-state caveats, it is complete for this read-only listing tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds useful semantics by stating that all defaults to unread-only and that pagination is limited to at most 50 per page.

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 and resource: it lists notification threads and explicitly defines ordering as most recently updated first. It also distinguishes the tool from read-thread alternatives by directing the agent to get_issue or get_pull_request for the underlying conversation.

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?

It gives explicit default behavior (unread only) and the condition for changing it (all=true). It also explains pagination constraints and directs the agent to the correct sibling tools for reading a notification thread in detail.

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