taskhub_notifications

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists notifications and includes an unread count, but does not mention whether it is read-only, how pagination works, what default values apply, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond what the name and the unread-count hint already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. The primary action (List) and resource (your notifications) are presented first, and the extra detail (unread count) is concise. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no wasted content.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the response structure more fully. It only mentions 'list' and 'unread count,' but does not specify what a notification object contains, whether the list is filtered, or any pagination defaults. Given the lack of output schema and the ambiguous nature of 'your notifications' (all vs. unread), the description is incomplete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters (page and limit) with adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, formats, or defaults. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate for minimal added value.

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 the action (List), the resource (your notifications), and an additional output element (unread count). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling taskhub_notification_read, which likely marks notifications as read, by focusing on retrieval. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving notifications, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like taskhub_notification_read or taskhub_tasks_my. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferable or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but direct guidance is missing.

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