Get Unread Conversation Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'very cheap,' a useful performance hint not present in annotations, but does not elaborate on auth needs, rate limits, or what the count represents (e.g., total across all courses).

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral traits and an alternative, all in a logical order.

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?

For a trivial, parameterless count tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, that it's read-only and cheap, and where to go for more detail.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter discussion, as none exist.

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 a specific verb ('Get the number of') and resource ('unread Canvas Inbox conversations'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_conversations by directing the agent there to see the conversations themselves.

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?

It provides a clear alternative ('Use list_conversations with scope unread to see them'), which tells the agent when to use the other tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need details or counts from other unread sources like discussions or todos).

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