get_chat_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one meaningful trait: the list reflects only passively received messages and is not the complete WeChat conversation list. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether 'readable' implies access scope, or how monitoring affects results over time.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the important scope caveat immediately after. No filler; only minor room to add parameter hints before it would bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the key data-provenance limitation is stated. Still, with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the definition leaves actionable gaps for a list endpoint.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions limit or keyword. Both parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess at their semantics.

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 ('返回当前可读取的会话列表') and defines its boundary by clarifying it is not the complete WeChat chat list. It is clearly distinguishable from the full-list concept, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_chat_history or get_recent_messages.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The provenance note ('based on passively monitored messages') implicitly tells the agent the list may be incomplete, which is useful context but not routing guidance.

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