notifications

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, masking of security codes, inclusion of ongoing notifications when all=true, and the Android limitation that dismissed notifications retain only the app name. It does not cover pagination or limit behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, presenting the core resource and return fields first, then the all=true behavior and dismissed-notification caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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?

For a simple read-only notification tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, ordering, masking, and important Android limitations. The main gap is the unexplained limit parameter and its interaction with result ordering.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the important all=true behavior well, but the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 identifies the resource as phone notifications and lists the returned fields (app, time, title, text), ordering, and masking behavior. It does not explicitly state a retrieval verb or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as messages or logs, so it is clear but lacks sibling-level disambiguation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Notifications shown on the phone' and the note that all=true includes ongoing notifications. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like messages or logs, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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