List my notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable nuance by stating that the tool does not mark notifications as read. This is a behavioral detail beyond the generic read-only flag, clarifying that viewing does not alter read status. The ordering (newest first) is also mentioned, providing context about result order. This goes beyond what annotations alone 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (list notifications) and includes useful details (ordering, categories, read-only behavior) without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple list tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resource, scope (signed-in user), ordering, read-only behavior, and example content types. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it correctly is missing.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, unreadOnly) with defaults and constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or context beyond what the schema already documents. Since the schema handles parameter documentation thoroughly, the description's lack of param-specific detail is acceptable and meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool lists the signed-in user's BugSecure notifications, newest first, with specific categories (report status changes, adjudications, appeals, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling mark_notifications_read by explicitly stating it is read-only and does not mark notifications as read, making its purpose 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 when to use this tool (to view notifications) and implicitly contrasts with mark_notifications_read by noting it does not alter read state. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or state 'use this when you only need to view, not mark as read', leaving the alternative to be inferred from context. The read-only clarification provides a clear differentiator, but an explicit reference to the marking tool would elevate it to a 5.

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