alerts_badge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the value is in-memory state only (possibly stale / not a server fetch) and is cheap to poll, which tells the agent about cost and freshness characteristics it could not get from the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the UI context, and the freshness/cost caveat in parentheses. No filler, nothing redundant, and the most decision-relevant detail leads.

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 zero-parameter, read-only badge counter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cache semantics, and cost profile. The only minor gap is that it does not state the return type (a bare integer count), though 'count' strongly implies 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or omit.

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 states a specific resource and verb-like outcome: the count of unacknowledged alerts, scoped to the workspace rail UI. That distinguishes it from siblings such as alerts_data or alerts (which presumably return the alerts themselves) without naming them explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'cheap to poll' implicitly endorses repeated/frequent invocation, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over alerts_data, alerts, or alerts_check_now, nor any condition under which to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer.

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