get_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool provides unread counts and highlighted conversations, and that it is not a full listing. However, it does not explain what 'destacadas' means, whether the response is count-like or full objects, or any real-time/state implications.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the usage condition is stated directly. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only style tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource (unread messages and highlighted conversations) and gives the usage trigger (no Socket.IO). It lacks details on the exact response shape or semantics of 'destacadas', but these are not required to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is useful for an agent deciding to call it.

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's purpose: it returns unread messages and highlighted conversations. It also positions itself as a lightweight alternative to listing everything when Socket.IO is not available, which distinguishes it from list_conversations. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool it relates to.

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 conveys strong usage context by saying it is a lightweight alternative to listing everything when Socket.IO is not available. This implies when to use it versus list_conversations, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative directly.

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