get_thread_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens in edge cases (e.g., no unread threads). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation implied by 'Get'.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives the gist of the return ('unread threads count and mentions') but lacks details about response structure or how it relates to the team context. It is minimally acceptable but leaves the agent guessing about the exact payload and edge-case behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for team_id, which already specifies 'Team ID'. The description's 'for a team' adds minimal semantic value, essentially restating the parameter. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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') and identifies a clear resource ('unread threads count and mentions') scoped to a team. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_thread (individual thread) and get_team_unread (general unread) by specifying thread-focused stats, though it could be more explicit about the aggregate nature.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_unread or get_teams_unread. The description only states what it does, without any contextual cues, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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.