wetrack_get_unread_notification_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Get') and the authenticated scope, but gives no further behavioral details such as output format, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a trivial count operation this is adequate, but it is not rich.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first states the core function; the second provides a real-world use case. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (a count), who it applies to (authenticated user), and when to use it (badge count). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no deficiency to lower it.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('total number of unread notifications'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like wetrack_list_notifications (which returns a list) and the mark-as-read tools, as it explicitly targets 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 gives a concrete use case ('Useful for showing a badge count'), which tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5. The context is clear enough for correct selection.

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