获取群历史消息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds the 'from message_seq, max count' boundary but does not disclose response shape or edge-case behavior; with annotations present this is adequate 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?

One compact sentence states the resource, the starting position, and the limit with no filler. All information is front-loaded.

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?

With 4 parameters fully documented in the schema, one required, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the return concept (chat history) is self-evident; a more advanced description could add response details.

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 group_id, count, message_seq, and reverse_order. The description summarizes message_seq and count but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: '获取指定群的聊天记录' (retrieve chat history for a specified group), and adds starting point and limit semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from get_friend_msg_history and 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when a group's historical messages are needed, and the group scope implicitly separates it from friend-message and other siblings. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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