get_scheduled_messages

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it only retrieves the user's own scheduled messages (自己设置的) that are unsent (还没发出去). This clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation with scope constraints.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately actionable.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (list scheduled messages) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details return structure), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its scope. No additional context seems necessary.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter is a chat identifier ('某个对话里'), which provides context beyond the schema type. Although it doesn't specify format, it meets the baseline for a single-parameter 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 lists scheduled messages set by the user in a specific chat that have not yet been sent. It uses specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '定时消息' (scheduled messages), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_scheduled_messages and send_scheduled_now.

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 context (listing own unsent scheduled messages) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any conditions/exclusions.

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