get_unread_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a count and mentions a success field, but does not disclose whether this is a pure read operation, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 short, with the main purpose stated upfront followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, though the inclusion of familiar docstring formatting is 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 tool is a simple getter with two parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the basic return structure. However, the error about a required parameter and lack of usage context reduce completeness for an adequate understanding.

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 description attempts to explain parameters but contains a factual error: it marks 'caller_agent_id' as required while the input schema declares it optional with a default of null. This contradiction undermines reliability. Schema coverage is 0% so the description partially compensates but with an inaccuracy.

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 the tool retrieves the number of unread messages for an agent. The verb 'get' and resource 'unread count' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from related tools like 'read_messages' which read actual messages rather than a count.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over other messaging tools among the siblings.

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