Notifications list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context beyond that: the INSSIST PRO requirement, which the schema does not mention. It says nothing about pacing, volume, or refresh behavior, so the added value is limited.

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?

Two short fragments with zero filler; the resource and its contents are front-loaded ahead of the license note. It is efficient, though slightly telegraphic — there is no sentence that actually says what the tool does with the notifications (list/retrieve).

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it only gestures at that by listing notification categories. It omits the shape of a notification record and any pagination semantics beyond what the limit parameter already states. The PRO prerequisite is a helpful addition, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so all four parameters (type, limit, instant, instance) are already fully documented with defaults, ranges, and ordering. The description's list of notification categories loosely echoes the type filter but adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 names the resource (recent notifications) and enumerates the content types (comments, likes, follows, mentions), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and there is no sibling it could be confused with (comments_list, dm_list cover different resources), so no differentiation is required. Clear, but not a full verb+resource statement.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The only directive is the PRO prerequisite, which is an eligibility note rather than usage guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for notification data.

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