scf_get_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds value by specifying that only the caller's notifications are returned and by listing the included event types. However, it does not disclose response shape, sorting, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's limit parameter implies.

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 a single, focused sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The category list is compact and informative without any redundant 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 read-only list tool with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient scope and content clarity. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'notifications' resource and category list, though a bit more detail on the returned fields would make it fully complete.

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 fully documents both parameters with defaults, ranges, and descriptions (100% schema description coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Get') with an explicit resource ('the caller's notifications') and enumerates the notification categories. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the many unrelated sibling tools, none of which target notifications.

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 caller-scoped phrasing makes the usage context clear: this returns the current user's own notifications, not some workspace-wide feed. There is no sibling notification tool to differentiate against, so the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, though the description stops short of stating when not to use it.

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