get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a non-destructive read and the parenthetical lists the returned categories, but it does not disclose ordering, the time window for 'recent', pagination behavior, or any authentication requirements.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical that adds useful scope. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 core purpose is clear and the parameter is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out return shape, ordering, recency bounds, and pagination details. These gaps make it adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the input schema with type, default, minimum, maximum, and a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('recent notifications'), and enumerates the notification types included. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on posts, users, profiles, and timelines.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus related options like get_timeline, get_user_feed, or search_posts. It also omits any prerequisites such as authentication or context in which notifications are expected to be available.

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