read

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool mutates state but is not destructive. The description confirms mutation by saying 'Mark as read' but adds little beyond that. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical usage requirement. No extraneous information or redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and a key constraint. However, it does not describe the return value or side effects (e.g., whether notifications disappear). The complexity is low, so minor gaps are acceptable.

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 already describes both parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Requires either prUrl or all'), which is not explicitly in the schema. This adds value but is marginal given the schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool's action: 'Mark PR notifications as read.' It specifies the verb (mark as read) and resource (PR notifications), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dismiss' or 'claim', which might have overlapping effects.

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 includes a usage constraint: 'Requires either prUrl or all to be specified.' This provides a necessary precondition but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'dismiss' or 'shelve'. The sibling list is provided but not referenced.

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