get_teams_unread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns unread counts for all teams, which is a behavioral outcome, but it does not mention any potential caveats like read-only status, performance implications, or the exact return structure. This is adequate for a simple read operation but adds little beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., a list of team IDs with counts) or clarifying that it covers all teams the user is a member of, but these are not critical for a tool this simple.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to document. The description is not required to explain any parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for the null-parameter case.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('unread message counts'), and the scope ('all teams'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_team_unread' that targets a single team.

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 phrase 'for all teams' gives clear context about when to use this tool versus a single-team tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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