get_unread_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the 'unread' filter context but does not disclose scope (e.g., current user, all conversations) or any other behavioral nuances. With annotations present, this is adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 present, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (a count of unread conversations). A minor gap is the lack of explicit scope (e.g., whose conversations), but the overall simplicity and output schema lower the burden.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and the schema is trivially complete. No additional parameter information is possible or needed.

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 'Get number of unread conversations' clearly uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unread conversations'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_conversations by returning a count rather than a list.

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 implies usage for retrieving a count of unread conversations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_conversations or mark_conversations_read. The context makes the use case fairly obvious, so this is adequate but not explicit.

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