vk_get_notifica_4bf31ea26a70

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 adds useful behaviors: 'does not usually require a request body', top-level parameters, aliases, and required authentication. However, it says 'all notifications' while the schema includes pagination parameters, creating ambiguity about whether all are returned in a single call. This lack of clarity reduces transparency.

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 five sentences long and contains redundancy: the first and third sentences both state 'all notifications for the current user'. While each other sentence adds useful detail (endpoint, body, params, auth), the repetition makes it less concise than it should be.

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 simple GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, authentication, parameter style, and return shape ('array'). It does not clarify pagination behavior or the item structure of notifications, but it is reasonably complete for a list endpoint.

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%, with descriptions for page and perPage already included. The description notes that parameters are top-level and accept camelCase/snake_case aliases, but this adds little value beyond the schema which already lists both perPage and per_page. 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 clearly states 'Get all notifications for the current user' with a specific verb and resource, and it identifies the underlying endpoint 'GET /notifications'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vk_get_tasks_* and vk_get_projects_*, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 about what the tool does and its endpoint, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to use this one over others. Usage is implied by the resource ('notifications') but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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