unread_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey useful scoping behavior (only unread chats, per-chat aggregation, bounded preview window), which implies a non-destructive read, but it never states read-only semantics, auth requirements, or rate limits explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then a compact Args block for the two parameters. Sized appropriately for a simple two-parameter tool with no wasted filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return values, and both input parameters are covered. For a simple read-only summary tool this is largely complete; only the absence of any sibling routing or auth context keeps it from being fully sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both parameters are explained in plain language ('how many recent messages to preview per chat', 'max number of unread chats to include'). Defaults live in the schema, which is fine, though no guidance is given on sensible values or truncation behavior.

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?

Names a specific verb (summarize) and a specific resource scope (unread chats), and even specifies the shape of the result: unread count plus previews. It does not, however, position itself against close siblings like list_dialogs, read_messages, or search_messages, so the differentiation is by scope only.

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 word 'unread' implies the retrieval context (triage of pending conversations), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer read_messages or search_messages, and no prerequisites such as requiring an authenticated session.

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