获取合并转发内容

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what happens with invalid IDs, whether both id and message_id are needed, or any side effects.

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 with no filler, repetition, or unrelated details. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

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 getter with one required parameter and read-only annotations, the basic call is inferable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the return format or the distinction between id and message_id, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not clarify the relationship between id and message_id or explain when the optional message_id should be used.

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 uses a clear verb ('获取'/'get') and names a specific resource: the content of merged forward/chat-record messages. It is immediately distinguishable as a retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_msg.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_msg or get_group_msg_history. The only usage signal is the tool name and the one-line purpose, leaving the agent to infer selection without explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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