channel_unread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only semantics, that no watermark row is written, that the query has no side effects, and it defines the unread predicate precisely (mention whole-value match + project membership + later than watermark; no watermark = all unread). No contradiction with any structured field.

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?

Front-loads the result shape, then the two facts an agent most needs (safe to call, clear via channel_read_ack), then the exact unread rule. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the remaining unknowns for a 2-param read tool: side effects, clearing path, and the counting rule. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds semantic depth by defining what `reader` participates in (mention matching) and how the unread predicate depends on it, going beyond the schema's field-level notes.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: per-channel unread counts for one reader under one project, with a parenthetical listing the three facts returned (who, how many, latest content). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like channel_read, channel_mentions and channel_read_ack.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to channel_read_ack for the adjacent action of clearing unread, and clarifies that reading here will not clear anything — a real decision boundary. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over channel_mentions or channel_read, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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