Dpanel Notice List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it offers almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, whether the list is paginated, or whose notices are returned.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the resource leading and the clarifying parenthetical second; nothing is wasted. The brevity is structural virtue even though the content is thin.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently — particularly around pagination and result scope.

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% for the two parameters (page, page_size), and the description adds no meaning at all — no default values, ranges, or pagination semantics beyond what the bare types imply. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a verb+resource (notice list) and the parenthetical narrows it to operational event history, which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling notice tools like dpanel_notice_unread or dpanel_notice_delete, so an agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus dpanel_notice_unread (unread notices) or when listing is appropriate at all. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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