unread

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool's purpose but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the runtime behavior of fetching unread sessions. The only added context is the optional filter on chat types, which is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List unread sessions') and adds only the key optional constraint. There is no redundant information, making it highly efficient 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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks details on pagination parameters and possible side effects. However, given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is minimally viable. The sibling context is not addressed, but the description is sufficient for basic use.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'type_filter' parameter by mentioning restriction to group/private chats, but 'limit' and 'offset' are not addressed. Since pagination is a common concern, the description's failure to explain these leaves a significant gap.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'unread sessions', clearly defining its scope. It also mentions an optional restriction to group/private chats, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sessions' that likely lists all sessions. This satisfies the criteria for differentiating from siblings.

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 implies usage when you need a list of unread sessions, and the optional restriction hints at filtering scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'sessions' or 'read_chat_range', nor does it mention exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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