get_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains pagination via cursor but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is informative, and the parameter details are presented in a clear, structured list without unnecessary words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers pagination and parameter inputs well. However, it could briefly mention the structure or sort order of notification items to improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with default values, constraints, and how cursor relates to previous responses. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 that the tool fetches notifications with pagination support. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the tool name and description are sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose, and no other sibling tool deals with notifications directly.

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 detailed parameter instructions, including allowed values for notification_type, default and max count, and cursor usage. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context from sibling names suggests it's the only notification-fetching tool, making the guidance adequate.

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