get_unread_comment_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly signals a read operation ('Get'), but it does not disclose whether retrieving unread threads has side effects (e.g., marking them as read), nor does it mention return format, pagination, or permissions. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: the action, the resource, the 'unread' filter, and the 'team' scope.

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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description sufficiently states the action and scope for a basic retrieval. A slight deduction is made for not mentioning the return format or confirming there are no side effects, but overall it is complete for this simplicity.

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 already documents the only parameter 'teamId' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clearly scoped resource 'all unread comment threads for a team'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_comment_threads' or 'get_comment_thread' by adding the 'unread' qualifier and team scope.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need all unread comment threads for a team. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use 'list_comment_threads' for all threads), so it stops short of a full 5.

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