List notifications

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint by specifying the returned fields and clarifying that notifications are scoped to the authenticated account. It also signals a safe read operation by framing the follow-up mark-read action as a separate step. It does not cover ordering or pagination nuances, but those are minor for a list action.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the primary purpose and return contents, and the second gives a concise, actionable chaining instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 schema documents both parameters and an output schema exists, while annotations cover read-only safety. The description sufficiently covers the return fields and a realistic downstream use. Minor details such as sort order or error behavior are absent but not critical for this low-complexity list tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the limit range and the response_format enum. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given the 100% schema description coverage.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('in-app notifications'), and a scope ('for the authenticated account'), then enumerates the returned fields: ids, titles, messages, read state, timestamps, and unread count. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like repovive_mark_notifications_read.

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 a workflow by telling the agent to pass returned ids to repovive_mark_notifications_read to clear them, which makes the tool's role as a prerequisite clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over repovive_get_unread_notifications_count or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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