qq_get_unread_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions it returns 'messages counted by the latest conversation_unread prompt', which is vague and jargon-heavy. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, if it marks messages as read, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 only two sentences, focusing on the core function. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant and uses unclear phrasing ('conversation_unread prompt'), slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it is concise but could be more efficient.

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 the complexity of unread message retrieval, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of messages, IDs, or full objects), pagination, or prerequisites. This leaves agents uncertain about how to use the response or how the tool fits with related functionality.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It relates target_type to group/private conversation and implies target_id identifies the conversation, but it does not explain the limit parameter (its default, meaning, or effect). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 gets the current unread batch for a group or private conversation, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'unread messages'. This distinguishes it from siblings like qq_get_recent_messages, which retrieves all recent messages, and qq_get_message, which gets a specific message.

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 implicitly indicates it is for unread messages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qq_get_recent_messages or qq_search_messages. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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