read_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the output row fields (type, severity, payload, markers) and explicitly indicates that marking items as read is done via separate POST endpoints, implying this tool is read-only. This is clear behavioral disclosure for a read operation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers defaults, filtering, output fields, and the mutation path without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the row structure. It covers purpose, filtering, defaults, output fields, and how to mark items read. The only minor omission is pagination behavior, but the limit parameter addresses that. Overall, it equips an agent with everything needed to call the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little new information about parameters. It restates the defaults for unread_only and unresolved_only ('Defaults to unread + unresolved') and mentions category filtering, but these are already in the schema. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb+resource: 'View your kingdom's alert queue.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_channel by focusing on kingdom alerts. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

It provides clear context on defaults (unread + unresolved) and how to filter by category. It implies usage for checking alerts before acting. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so explicit exclusion is not necessary. It offers practical guidance on when to adjust filters.

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