yupao_get_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real behavior: results are paginated, only already-synced conversations are readable, reading does not trigger read receipts, and attachment download URLs are omitted from results. These are meaningful side-effect disclosures beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and exclusions after; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should explain the cursor parameter and at least sketch the returned message shape; instead it omits both, leaving an agent unsure how to page or what fields come back.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it never explains conversation_id's origin or how next_req_message_id acts as a pagination cursor (where it comes from, how to continue). It only says 'paginated' generically.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: paginated read of synced conversation chat history. The negative clauses ('does not send messages or read receipts') distinguish it from send/prepare_message siblings, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Implies usage (read history of an already-synced conversation) and lists what it won't do, but never says when to call it versus alternatives like yupao_list_conversations to obtain a conversation_id or yupao_check_messaging_session.

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