get_workflow_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds. It explains the inbound send/recv model, highlights a key distinction from events (multiple notifications per topic), and documents the consumed flag in the output. However, it doesn't cover ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 well-structured and mostly concise, with a clear opening line, an Args section, and a Returns section. The Returns block is a bit verbose given that an output schema exists, but it doesn't feel bloated.

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 description covers the tool's core inputs and output shape sufficiently for an agent to call it correctly. Since the tool has only two simple string parameters and the return structure is documented, missing finer details like error responses or empty-array behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section only restates the parameter names as 'Name of the DBOS application' and 'ID of the workflow,' adding little beyond the schema's titles. No format, constraints, or source guidance is provided.

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 and resource: 'Get notifications received by a workflow from DBOS Conductor.' It then explicitly differentiates the tool from get_workflow_events, so an agent can immediately tell which sibling to use.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This is the tool to use for "what did this workflow receive?"' and directs users to get_workflow_events for the opposite case. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. alternative guidance that helps an agent select correctly.

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