read

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the operation is non-read-only and non-destructive. It does not detail what happens to notifications or whether it's reversible.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes critical parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 state-change tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter constraint. Missing return value or side-effect details, but adequate given simplicity.

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%, but the description explicitly states the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Requires either prUrl or all to be specified'), which is not encoded in the JSON schema. This adds meaningful guidance beyond schema definitions.

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 specific action ('Mark PR notifications as read') and the resource ('PR notifications'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'claim', 'comments', etc., which have different purposes.

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 only provides a parameter constraint (requires prUrl or all) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use read vs. dismiss or shelve). No explicit when-not or usage context.

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