get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, but the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether results are chronological, whether notifications are marked as read, or any side effects. The description relies entirely on the tool name.

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 a single sentence in Japanese, which is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded but omits critical information that would fit in a few more sentences.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It only conveys the basic purpose, missing details on parameters, behavior, and usage context. Sibling tools like get_comments suggest a task management context, but the description doesn't leverage this.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose of team_id, user_id, or unread_only. For example, it doesn't clarify whether unread_only filters to unread notifications or marks them as read.

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 'ユーザーの通知を取得する' which means 'get user notifications'. It specifies the verb (取得する/get) and resource (通知/notifications), but it lacks clarity on scope (e.g., all notifications or filtered by team?). It does not differentiate from siblings like get_comments or get_goals.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from get_comments or state whether it retrieves all notifications or only for the current user. The required user_id suggests personal scope but is not explicit.

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