get-chatwoot-unread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses server-side gating on the internal `chatwoot_hmac` identifier, that the SDK never holds or forwards the HMAC, and that the response carries no credential-shaped fields. It stops short of stating failure behavior when the gate rejects the call or whether results are cached/per-user scoped.

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?

Four sentences, zero padding, with the purpose and return shape front-loaded before the security model and usage guidance. Every sentence adds information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the exact return keys and the security/auth model, which is everything an agent needs to call a zero-argument read tool correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed or missing on the parameter side.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the support-channel unread state for the current user") and immediately names the exact return shape `{contact_found, has_unread}`, making it unmistakable versus siblings like get-balance or chat-exists.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ("Use to surface 'the user has an unread support reply' without pulling the full Chatwoot widget") and implicitly contrasts with heavier alternatives, but does not name a specific sibling or state when not to use it.

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