list_notifications_for_authenticated_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only states that it lists notifications, without mentioning default filters (e.g., unread only), pagination, or authentication requirements. The schema hints at read-notification behavior via the 'all' parameter, but the description does not disclose anything.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality, and every word is purposeful.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain default behavior, such as showing only unread notifications unless 'all' is true, nor does it describe the return format or pagination. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context for a non-trivial tool with four optional parameters.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema is sufficient. Thus, the description meets the baseline without adding value.

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 tool lists notifications for the authenticated user. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from siblings because there are no other notification tools. It essentially restates the tool name but in plain language.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The usage is implied: to list notifications. There are no sibling tools for notifications, so no exclusions are needed, but the description does not offer any context like typical use cases.

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