ariel_get_unread_count

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the scoped count, which is acceptable for such a simple read operation, but it does not mention behavior such as whether the count reflects only the current session or includes all accounts.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence perfectly captures the whole tool with no wasted words. It is minimal but exactly as concise as the tool's simplicity allows.

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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description provides the essential information: what is being counted and that the result is a number. It is slightly thin on alternative guidance, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses entirely on the output semantics.

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 exactly states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('unread notifications'), and returns a number, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_notifications by focusing on the unread count rather than the notification list.

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 is implied by the description: call this when you need the count of unread notifications. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like ariel_get_notifications or note when a full list would be more appropriate.

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