comms_unread_bodies

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states the tool returns unacknowledged bodies but does not disclose whether it is read-only, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but efficient for the information provided.

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?

Moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description clarifies the purpose and default order but does not describe the return format (e.g., array of strings, metadata). Lacks completeness for a tool with minimal schema annotations.

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 description coverage is only 25%. The description adds meaning for the 'order' parameter (ascending by default) but does not explain 'channel', 'limit', or expand on 'instance_id' beyond the schema. Partially compensates but could do more.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns unacknowledged message bodies for a given instance_id, contrasting with an endpoint that returns only counts. Distinguishes itself among siblings like comms_get_acks and comms_channels.

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?

Provides context on default ordering (ascending for reading order) and mentions complementing another endpoint. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.