dingtalk_chat_message_list_unread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves unread conversations but does not disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or whether unread status is changed after retrieval. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or output structure.

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 directly conveys the essential function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of return-value context. It tells the agent the high-level result (a list of conversations with unread messages), but lacks details on the conversation fields (e.g., IDs, names, unread counts). For a simple read-only list tool, this is acceptable but leaves ambiguity about the exact payload.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4 per the guidelines. The description appropriately mentions no parameters, and no parameter semantics are needed. It does not add extra parameter context, but none is required for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's function: '获取当前用户有未读消息的会话列表' (get the current user's list of conversations with unread messages). It features a specific verb ('获取') and a well-defined resource ('有未读消息的会话列表'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dingtalk_chat_message_list or dingtalk_chat_message_search, which focus on messages rather than conversation lists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer sibling tools like dingtalk_chat_message_list_all or dingtalk_chat_message_list_mentions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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