list_notifications

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the sorting order (by modification date, newest first) and filtering capabilities, which are not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 a full output schema provided, the description does not need to cover return values. It adequately covers sorting, filtering, and the list nature. The limit parameter implies pagination but is not explicitly mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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% and the input schema already describes all three parameters (limit, includeArchived, unreadOnly) with detailed descriptions. The description reiterates the filtering concepts but does not add significant semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 action ('List inbox notifications'), the resource ('notifications'), and key details like sorting by modification date (newest first) and filtering by read/archived status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'get_notification' or 'archive_notification'.

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 implies usage for listing notifications with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_unread_notification_count' or 'mark_all_notifications_read'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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