get-inbox-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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters including nested objects), complete lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, how notifications are structured, what authentication is required, or how parameters interact. For a tool that likely returns structured notification data, the description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (including a nested object), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'userId', 'query.unread', 'startingAfter', or 'limit' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the retrieval. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters semantically opaque.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Liveblocks inbox notifications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-inbox-notification' (singular) by implying it retrieves multiple notifications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notification-related tools like 'delete-all-inbox-notifications' or 'trigger-inbox-notification' beyond the action verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-inbox-notification' (singular), 'delete-all-inbox-notifications', and 'trigger-inbox-notification', there's no indication of when this bulk retrieval tool is appropriate versus fetching a single notification or performing other inbox operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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