get_unread_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states it is read-only ('never marks anything read'), never touches the search index, omits denylist-excluded conversations, and returns an empty list when nothing is unread. This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and key benefits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description addresses E2EE decryption, sender names, read-only guarantee, denylist handling, and empty list behavior. With no output schema, the return format is implied but not detailed, which is acceptable for a digest tool. It is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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% as both parameters (limit, perChat) are described with defaults in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond confirming defaults, which meets the baseline for high coverage but does not add extra value.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'one-shot unread digest' that retrieves LINE conversations with unread messages, including decrypted messages and resolved sender names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_conversations and get_chat_messages by highlighting the combined functionality.

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 description mentions it saves calling list_conversations then get_chat_messages per chat, implying a combined alternative. It states it is read-only, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the efficiency benefit.

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