List Unraid notifications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds value by noting that the response includes overview counts and active warnings/alerts, but it omits behavioral details like pagination ordering or how importance filtering affects results.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or restatement of the tool name. The primary action and scope are front-loaded before the additional output details.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema-level descriptions, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It fails to explain pagination via limit/offset or the role of the importance filter, and the many sibling notification tools make the lack of routing guidance more costly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially maps to the 'type' parameter via 'unread or archived'. The limit, offset, and importance parameters have no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess their effect.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Unraid notifications'), and scopes it to 'unread or archived' notifications, plus overview counts and active warnings/alerts. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool such as unraid_v4371_query_notifications, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over sibling notification tools like unraid_v4371_query_notifications or the various unraid_v4371_next_notifications_* subscriptions. The description implies a use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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