passport_get_unread_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves counts, but fails to indicate required authentication, the types of messages counted, whether it is read-only, or the response format.

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 a single concise phrase with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise. Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of the returned counts (e.g., a list of message types with counts) or any other behavior. The tool is simple but lacks necessary completeness for an AI agent to use 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 input schema is empty (no parameters). The description adds meaning by specifying '各类' (various types), implying the tool returns categorized counts, which goes beyond the empty schema. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 '获取各类未读消息数量' clearly states the tool retrieves counts of various types of unread messages, specifying the verb (get) and resource (unread message counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webchat_get_unread_count, which likely focuses on chat messages 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webchat_get_unread_count or other passport tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit use cases.

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