agtask_fetch_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about authentication needs, pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens when the conversation_id is invalid, leaving behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry needed context.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return-format and pagination context that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (conversation_id and limit with its default of 20). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 (拉取/fetch) and resource (消息记录/message records) scoped to a conversation, which distinguishes it from siblings like agtask_list_conversations and agtask_send_message. It is clear but does not explicitly name any sibling it competes with.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agtask_list_conversations or agtask_send_message, and no prerequisites or context conditions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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