count_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a count is returned, adding no context about what the count includes, whether it respects the boolean parameters, or any side effects. This is too thin for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, short sentence that is immediately readable and free of fluff. It earns its place by stating the core function without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must clarify the return value. It says 'returns count' but does not specify the format (e.g., plain integer vs. JSON object), the scope (all notifications vs. current user), or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other contextual documentation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for both booleans, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter clarity, but the schema already defines alreadyRead and resourceAlreadyRead adequately.

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 counts notifications, using a verb ('Returns') and the resource ('notifications'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_notifications by virtue of returning a count, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention whether to use it for a quick total, for unread counts, or how it relates to get_notifications or reset_unread_notification_count.

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