tg_unread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that each chat indicates archiving status and the semantics of the archived parameter, but it omits any statement about side effects—most notably whether fetching unread messages marks them as read. This is a significant gap for a tool dealing with unread state.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a well-organized argument list. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple and the output schema exists, so the description covers core invocation details: what it returns, how to limit results, and the archived filter. The only notable omission is the potential side effect on read status, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage, yet the description comprehensively explains all three parameters (limit_chats, per_chat, archived) with clear semantics for null/false/true. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it lists all unread messages grouped by chat with the latest incoming messages, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly frames the use case for 'what did I miss' questions, distinguishing it from walking through chats one by one and from sibling tools like tg_history or tg_mentions.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for 'what did I miss' questions instead of walking chats one by one, providing a clear use case and an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or reference other sibling tools as substitutes.

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