get_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering to allowlisted repos, the unread-only default, and the specific permission requirement, which are valuable behavioral facts. It does not mention edge cases like missing permissions or response format, but for a simple read tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently covers purpose, scope, and a key prerequisite, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it operates on, and an important permission note. It is complete for its complexity.

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 sole parameter 'all' is fully described in the schema (boolean, default false, 'Include read notifications too'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond noting the unread default, which the schema already implies. Baseline of 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 the tool retrieves unread GitHub notifications, specifying types (mentions, review requests) and scope (repos in server's allowlist). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on issues, PRs, code search, etc., leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly calls out a required permission ('Notifications account permission') that is unique to this tool among siblings, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for other notification-related tasks, but the context strongly differentiates it.

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