get_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') and adds category context, but it does not disclose auth prerequisites, whether results are paginated or filtered, or what happens when there are no notifications.

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 one tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler words. It could add useful context, but its existing text is appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits auth context, parameter semantics, and meaningful differentiation from get_notification_history. The category examples are helpful but not enough to fully specify correct invocation in context.

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% and the description never mentions the subdomain parameter or its meaning. The input schema only provides the name and default, so the agent receives no semantic information about how to fill it.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the list of available timeline notifications' and provides category examples (homework, tests, messages, grades, events). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_notification_history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_notification_history or other notification-related getters. The description implies current timeline notifications but never states exclusions or conditions.

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