Непрочитанные

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is low. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail — labels are human-readable names and not raw IDs — but contributes nothing further about ordering, pagination, or the exact shape of the result.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the resource and the key clarification, with the parenthetical positioned naturally after the main claim. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy for a 0-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters, fully protective annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call the tool. The only slight gap is that nothing clarifies whether the list is ordered or limited — but that information is likely covered by the output schema, so the definition is adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description has nothing to compensate for since the schema is complete and empty; the names-vs-ids note is relevant to output, not input.

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 identifies the returned resource — chats containing unread messages — and adds the decisive distinguishing trait that results are keyed by name rather than by raw id. It is obviously distinct from siblings like push_unread_count (a count) or messenger_conversations (all chats), though it does not explicitly name them and contains no verb.

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?

There is no guidance about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives such as messenger_conversations or push_unread_count. Usage is only implied by the title and phrase; the agent is not told which sibling to prefer in which scenario.

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