notification_preferences_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb and 'Returns per-event settings' phrasing clearly imply a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the return includes defaults for unset preferences, pagination, or response shape, and with no annotations the description could add more safety context.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first establishes the verb and resource, the second enumerates the return scope. Perfectly sized for a parameterless getter.

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 parameterless read operation with the channels enumerated in the description, the tool is adequately documented. The lack of an output schema means the return-shape detail ('per-event settings for email, in-app, push, and WhatsApp') in the description compensates well. Revealing whether defaults are included would push this higher, but completeness is solid for this simple tool.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are trivially documented. The description adds value by specifying exactly what will be returned (per-event settings for email, in-app, push, and WhatsApp channels), which is semantically meaningful despite the absence of parameters.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('the authenticated user's notification preferences'), and the scope ('for all event types'). It distinguishes this GET tool from its sibling 'notification_preferences_update', and specifies the channels covered (email, in-app, push, WhatsApp), making the purpose explicit and 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 implies this is a read operation to retrieve current settings, which provides reasonable context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs the update sibling, and no return format or use context (e.g., 'call this before updating to understand current state') is given. The 'all event types' scope is helpful but provides no exclusion guidance.

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