wb_new_feedbacks_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports boolean flags for unseen feedbacks/questions and names the fields. However, it does not explain whether reading the flags resets them, what defines 'unseen,' or whether any side effects occur. Adequate for a simple flag tool, but not rich.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core concept. The Russian parenthetical is redundant but not harmful. Minor deduction for lacking an explicit action verb, not for length or structure.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description names the two flag fields, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the unspecified semantics of 'unseen' and whether the flags have lifecycle behavior, but overall the definition is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description names output fields rather than inputs, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 states that the tool exposes flags for unseen feedbacks and questions and names the exact fields (hasNewFeedbacks, hasNewQuestions). This identifies a distinct status-check behavior among the feedbacks/questions sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks' and does not explicitly contrast with related list/count tools.

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 intended use case is implied: check whether there are unseen feedbacks or questions. But the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of wb_feedbacks_list, wb_feedbacks_count, wb_questions_list, or wb_questions_count, nor any exclusions.

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