Get Unread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default result is silently filtered to exclude sidebar-muted channels, and the filter mirrors the client unread badge. That hidden default is exactly the kind of thing an agent could otherwise misreport, though result shape/pagination is not discussed (and the output schema covers it).

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core capability before the default-behavior caveat. No filler or redundancy; the only small weakness is that the muted-override sentence could be tightened further.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and both optional parameters are covered by the schema. For a two-param read-only aggregate tool, the only meaningful gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance for when an agent should prefer get_mentions.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, and the description largely restates the include_muted default. It adds a conceptual anchor (this skip matches the client unread badge) that gives the parameter meaning beyond its literal wording, but says nothing about the category filter (e.g. what happens on a non-matching category). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Get unread counts and mention badges per channel" names a specific verb and resource with an explicit aggregation scope (per channel). The scope wording implicitly separates it from get_channel_posts or list_channels, but it never names a sibling to distinguish from, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 genuine usage context for the muted-channel case (default skips muted, pass include_muted=True to see everything) and anchors the behavior to the client's unread badge. It gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus get_mentions or search_posts when an agent actually wants individual mention items, leaving that inference to the agent.

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