list_unread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing ordering (newest change first), that each item carries the change time, and that it works even when TrailMark is closed by reading from the project's files. It does not describe volume, pagination, or per-person scoping.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the when-to-use guidance. Every clause earns its place, with only minor redundancy in the parenthetical example.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough for correct invocation: what it returns, ordering, timing, and the closed-app fallback. It could be more complete by noting the response shape or any limits, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the scope is implicit (the current person's read state) rather than configurable.

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 resource and scope: 'The Markdown documents that changed since the person last read them in TrailMark,' which is clearly distinct from siblings like search, read_note, and list_notes. It is precise about what is returned and in what order, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when the person asks what changed, what they have not read yet, or to catch up,' plus a concrete example (after an agent edited documents). No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., search) is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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