get_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by noting it can be called 'without ending the turn.' Additionally, it adds context that action-required items include tool recommendations, which is valuable behavioral info not captured by annotations.

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 concise with three sentences: first states purpose, second elaborates notification types, third provides usage guidance. No redundant words, and important details are front-loaded.

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 is simple (no params, read-only, with output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns (active notifications, types), and that it's safe to call (without ending turn). The output schema handles return value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it also does not detract.

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 it 'Get all active game notifications' and distinguishes between action-required and informational types. It also specifies that action-required items include which MCP tool to use, making it specific and differentiating from sibling 'get' tools like get_pending_trades.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this to check what needs attention without ending the turn.' This implies it's safe to call anytime, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand its primary use.

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