dsm_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return ordering (newest first) and the unusual shape note that titles are DSM message ids and params are their values, which is genuinely extra context; it says nothing about volume, pagination, or retention limits.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core content (what is listed, newest first) is front-loaded before the shape detail. The id/params sentence is terse but somewhat cryptic, slightly reducing clarity for the space it occupies.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional param, an output schema that carries return shape, and annotations that carry safety. The description covers what is returned and ordering, but leaves limit behavior and any filtering/recency scope unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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?

There is one parameter (limit, default 20, range 1-200) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents only its type and bounds. The phrase 'newest first' indirectly tells the agent that limit truncates from the newest end, but no meaning is added about what the limit applies to or how to page deeper.

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?

Names a specific resource (DSM desktop notifications) and states the ordering (newest first) plus concrete content examples (Security Advisor, package and DSM updates). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling log tools (logcenter_logs, cloudsync_logs) by scoping to desktop notifications, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like logcenter_logs and cloudsync_logs that also surface messages, an agent gets no signal about which one answers a given question, and nothing indicates whether filtering or paging is expected.

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