List notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: ordering (newest first), scope (all groups or one), the returned fields (type, line, post, link), and the crucial side-effect disclosure that reading does not mark notifications read. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what happens when the cursor is exhausted.

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?

Front-loads the resource and ordering before the mechanics, and the second sentence carries the scope, return contents, and alternative routing. Slightly dense and repetitive ('newest first' appears twice), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned shape (type, display line, related post, link). Pagination details are left to the cursor parameter in the schema, so an agent knows enough to call and page correctly, though the response envelope itself remains implied.

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 four parameters including group, limit, cursor, and unread_only. The description reinforces group ('all groups or one') and unread_only semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (notifications) with scope spelled out: this account's bell, newest first, all groups or one. It also enumerates the notification kinds returned, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like list_posts or list_conversations without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use unread_only to narrow to unread, and use mark_notifications_read to actually mark them read, with the clarifying note that this tool does not. The alternative is named along with the condition that selects it.

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