获取群精华消息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. The description adds the scope '全部' (all), which implies a full collection, but it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or behavior when no essence messages exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the operation and scope. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only one-parameter tool with readOnlyHint=true, the description is largely sufficient. It names the resource, the scope, and the fact that it returns a list. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned message items could make it fully self-contained.

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%: the single required parameter group_id is already documented as '群号'. The description only echoes '指定群' without adding format, constraints, or examples, so it adds no meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取指定群的全部精华消息列表' ('get the list of all essence messages of the specified group'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_essence_msg (which adds messages) and get_group_msg_history (which fetches regular history), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description: use it when you need all essence messages for a specific group. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as get_group_msg_history or set_essence_msg, so the agent must infer the differentiation.

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