notifications_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by specifying the team scope and that read status is included in the response. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., marking notifications as read), pagination, or ordering, which are material for a list endpoint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and key behavioral detail ('including read status') without any fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential selection information: what is returned and for whom. It falls slightly short only on return-format details such as pagination or ordering, which are not covered elsewhere.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's scope ('current user's team') aligns with the empty input schema, and there are no parameter semantics requiring compensation.

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') and resource ('notifications for the current user's team'), and the phrase 'all' plus 'including read status' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling notifications_unread, which focuses on unread items. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus notifications_unread or other siblings. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions.

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