获取消息详情

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the operation itself, such as error behavior or return shape, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, the parameter key, and the operation clearly and efficiently.

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 one required, fully documented parameter and read-only/non-destructive annotations, the tool is almost fully specified for selection and invocation. Since there is no output schema, the phrase 详细信息 is slightly vague about the exact return shape, but this does not block correct use.

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 schema fully describes message_id as 消息ID with 100% coverage. The description only repeats the by-message_id lookup mechanic and adds no extra format, provenance, or edge-case guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the verb (获取), the target resource (单条消息的详细信息), and the lookup key (message_id). It is distinguishable from sibling list/history/forward tools, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 case is implied: when you have a message_id and need one message's details. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with get_group_msg_history, get_friend_msg_history, or get_forward_msg, nor does it state when not to use it.

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