notification_preferences_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the result covers all event types and per-event email, in-app, push, and WhatsApp settings, but it does not add much beyond that return scope.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted text. The core action and return scope are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read-only getter with rich annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand what is fetched and at a high level what is returned. It does not describe the exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the high-level channel summary is adequate 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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter expectations.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: get the authenticated user's notification preferences across all event types, and it explains the returned channel data. It is clearly a read operation versus the sibling notification_preferences_update, though it does not explicitly name the update alternative.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by 'Get the authenticated user's notification preferences', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to notification_preferences_update. The agent can infer this is the read operation, but the description does not route between alternatives.

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