get_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns list' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not mark notifications as read, or mention any rate limits, pagination defaults, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is properly front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is under-specified in content, it is structurally economical and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the shape of the returned list, default ordering, how count interacts with minId/maxId, or any edge cases. The agent would lack critical context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents all four parameters (count, maxId, minId, order) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 'Returns list of notifications' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (notifications). The word 'list' distinguishes it from sibling 'count_notifications', which returns a count, so it is specific enough. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope or filtering, so it lacks some differentiation detail.

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 like count_notifications, nor does it explain scenarios for the optional parameters (count, order, maxId, minId). It simply states the basic function, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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