notifications_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions pagination behavior and the authentication scope, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose ordering of results, filtering options (or lack thereof), or whether read operations have side effects (e.g., marking as read). For a read tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists notification types efficiently. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 paginated list tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, authentication scope, pagination, and content types. The notification type list is valuable context. Minor gaps: no mention of result ordering or whether unread notifications can be filtered.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (page and limit), with defaults and constraints already documented in the schema. The description adds the enumeration of notification types which enriches understanding of what the list contains, but doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since schema fully covers 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 tool retrieves a paginated list of notifications for the authenticated user. The verb 'Retrieve' plus resource 'notifications' establishes clear purpose, and the enumeration of notification types adds useful specificity. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like notifications_unread_count or notifications_mark_read, though the names themselves partially convey the distinction.

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 states it returns a paginated list but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs notifications_unread_count or other notification tools. The context of 'for the authenticated user' is clear, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The pagination parameters imply usage but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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