get_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing authentication requirement ('REQUIRES AUTHENTICATION'), pagination behavior ('Maximum number to return'), and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Use to), but could be more concise. The authentication warning appears twice ('REQUIRES AUTHENTICATION' and 'Must call login() first'), and the parameter descriptions repeat schema content. However, information is front-loaded and organized effectively.

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 read operation with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers authentication requirements, parameter usage, return format details, and specific use cases. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it provides adequate context for the tool's purpose and usage.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter information in the Args section but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'notifications', distinguishing it from siblings like get_user_actions or get_user_replies which focus on different data. It specifies it's for 'your notifications' (personal notifications) rather than system-wide notifications.

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?

Explicitly states 'Must call login() first' for authentication prerequisite, and provides three specific use cases: 'Check for new replies to your posts', 'See mentions and likes', and 'Track topic updates you're watching'. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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