get_unread

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and provides no details about the return structure, whether it returns counts or full messages, authentication requirements, or what 'summary' entails. This is a significant gap for an agent attempting to interpret the tool's output.

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 clear sentence that immediately states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or how the summary is presented. However, the schema covers parameter semantics and the purpose is straightforward, so the tool is usable for simple cases, but a thorough agent would need more details about the response.

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 already has 100% coverage, with each of the four parameters having descriptive text. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not clarify defaults, formatting, or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('unread messages, threads and channels summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_thread or list_channels, which deal with specific read operations or channel listings rather than a consolidated unread summary.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The optional parameter hints (e.g., defaults to first team) imply some usage context, but no direct comparison or selection guidance is provided.

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