List Notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is scoped to the authenticated user and active organization, requires set_context first, supports unread filtering and pagination, and returns specific fields (type, title, message, action URL, read status). This gives the agent a clear picture of the operation's behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, capabilities, return contents, and a prerequisite with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the key operational detail (set_context prerequisite), the filtering/pagination behavior, and the returned fields, so an agent has enough information to invoke it 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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description mentions filtering for unread only and pagination, which aligns with the parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('notifications'), and a scope ('for the authenticated user in the active organization'). It also states capabilities like unread filtering and pagination, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as mark_notification_read, mark_all_notifications_read, and get_notification_preferences.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: to retrieve notifications for the authenticated user in the active organization, with optional unread-only filtering and pagination. It also explicitly states a prerequisite: organization context must be set first via set_context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions compared to sibling notification tools, so it misses the top score.

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