qq_take_disc_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it does well: it discloses that the tool 'returns true once if a new-conversation signal is pending' and 'false otherwise,' and explains the meaning ('connector should start a fresh session'). It also implies a consumption behavior ('true once') without being overly verbose. It doesn't mention edge cases or side effects, but as a read-only check, this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the return value context. Every word earns its place: it states the check, the return behavior, and the recommended usage timing without redundancy or 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?

For an extremely simple tool (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. An agent can confidently invoke it without additional information. The meaning of 'true' is explicitly tied to starting a fresh session, closing the loop.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none exists. No further explanation is needed.

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's purpose: 'Check if the owner requested a DISC CHANGE (换碟) in private chat.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource (the DISC CHANGE request), and the behavior is unambiguously defined. It differentiates from sibling tools like qq_send or qq_poll_inbox, which serve entirely different functions, by focusing on a specific signal rather than messaging or inbox operations.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: 'Poll after handling inbox messages.' This tells the agent the timing relative to other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling set makes it obvious this is distinct from sending or waiting. The guidance is actionable but lacks explicit exclusions.

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