tg_unread

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

Annotations cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so by explaining chat grouping, archive status inclusion, and exactly what brief mode drops (reactions, link cards, edit times). These details go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with a purpose sentence, and each subsequent line adds value: usage context, archive behavior, and per-parameter semantics. There is no fluff or repeated schema information, and the Arg section makes it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It communicates the core shape: unread items grouped by chat, latest messages, and archive flag. It could be slightly richer about exact fields or ordering, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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%, but the description fully compensates with clear explanations for every parameter. It gives semantic meaning for limit_chats and per_chat, practical guidance ('Three is enough to tell what a chat wants'), and precise tri-state behavior for archived. It also clarifies the effect of brief on output size and use case.

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 the tool returns everything unread, grouped by chat with latest incoming messages. It is distinct from iterating over chats one by one, but does not name a specific sibling tool, so differentiation from the large sibling set is implicit rather than explicit.

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 says 'Use this for "what did I miss" questions instead of walking chats one by one,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also provides guidance on when brief mode is appropriate ('for triage, not for reading a chat closely'), though it does not name concrete alternative tools or state exclusions.

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