get_channel_unread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly labels the operation as a read ('Get') and describes the return content, but it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., that it does not mark messages read) or authentication requirements. This is minimal but adequate for a simple getter.

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 sentence, direct and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently captures the core function and return value (unread count and mentions). It could benefit from a note on when to use channel-level vs team-level unread, but that is more of a usage guideline than a completeness gap.

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 only parameter, channel_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Channel ID', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further semantics beyond 'for a channel,' so it does not elevate the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('unread message count and mentions for a channel'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_teams_unread and get_team_unread by specifying channel-level scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other unread-related tools. It simply states the function, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool's name and sibling list.

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