get_my_updates_with_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It accurately conveys that the tool returns information (read operation) but does not address permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects. The post-processing instruction is noted, but transparency is basic.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function, the second emphasizes the tool's value, and the third gives a critical follow-up action. No extraneous words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main output (diff and full content), the one-call convenience, and the required ack_update step. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., user-specific vs. project-specific) or explain the 'update_id' referenced in the post-processing step, leaving minor gaps.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about the required 'project_id' parameter beyond the schema. The schema itself only provides a title and type, offering minimal semantic guidance. The description should explain what project_id represents or how it filters updates.

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 it returns all unread notifications with diff and full latest document content, and distinguishes from sibling get_my_updates by indicating this provides comprehensive context in one call. The verb 'Return' identifies it as a retrieval operation.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call ack_update after processing to mark notifications as read, which provides clear post-processing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the simpler sibling get_my_updates, though the emphasis on 'everything needed' implies use cases requiring full context.

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