mfuns_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main outputs (notifications and unread count) and parameter semantics, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., marking notifications as read) or permission requirements. Since it's a 'get' operation, the impact is moderate, but the lack of explicit disclosures keeps it at a 3.

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 concise and well-structured: a single opening line states the purpose, followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence adds value without repetition 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. It includes unread count, which is a key output. Minor gaps like pagination details or notification behavior when empty could be added, but it's largely complete for a simple retrieval 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the semantics of `type` (like/comment/mention) and `page` (page number, default 1). This gives the agent clear guidance on parameter values and their meanings.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (obtain) and clearly defines the resource as '通知消息' (notification messages) with received likes/comments/mentions and unread count. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfuns_messages by focusing on notification-specific actions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (fetching notifications by type), and explains the type parameter options. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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