sw_get_notifications

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds 'recent' and 'current user' scope but does not disclose details such as ordering, pagination, or what counts as an activity notification. For a simple read-only tool, this is minimally acceptable but adds little beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It efficiently conveys verb, resource, and scope, though it could have used the space to add routing or behavioral caveats.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one optional parameter, no required fields, and a clear purpose. The read-only annotation and full schema coverage cover most context needs, though the description does not describe the response shape or notification ordering, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. It is adequate but not maximally 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, 'view', including what 'compact' versus 'full' returns and that compact drops avatar URLs. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the schema carries the full burden. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), resource ('Splitwise activity notifications'), and scope ('for the current user'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling getters because no other sibling targets notifications. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so the top score is not quite earned.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving the current user's recent activity notifications, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Since there is no sibling notification tool, the ambiguity is mild, but routing guidance is still absent.

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