list_unread_conversations

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

The description discloses that the tool filters by unread status and guest threads, but it does not confirm whether the operation is read-only or if it has any side effects (like marking messages as read). With no annotations, more explicit behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description efficiently conveys the tool's core function and the primary use case.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (unread guest threads) but does not detail the format or fields. Given the simplicity and sibling context, it is largely complete.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description, so the description's lack of additional parameter detail is acceptable. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it lists only guest message threads with unread messages, and provides a concrete use case (answering 'do I have any guests waiting on a reply?'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_conversations.

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 gives clear usage guidance by stating it's the most useful tool for checking for guests waiting on a reply. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the naming and sibling context (list_conversations) make the distinction evident.

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