token_bowl_chat_get_unread_count

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 the read-only, lightweight nature of the call ('without fetching the full message content') and documents the return shape, but says nothing about authentication requirements or rate limits. Adequate for a zero-argument read, 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the value proposition. The three-line 'Returns' block is somewhat redundant given that a full output schema already exists, which is the only real waste.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is essentially complete: what it returns and when to prefer it are both covered. The only shortfall is that the explicit return enumeration duplicates the output schema.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter noise, which is correct here.

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 and resource (get the count of unread messages) with an explicit scope ('across all message types'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like token_bowl_chat_get_unread_messages and get_unread_direct_messages, which return content rather than a count.

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 clear context: 'the fastest way to check if you have new messages without fetching the full message content', which tells the agent to prefer this over the message-fetching siblings when only a count is needed. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating exclusions explicitly, so it falls just 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.