qrchat_read_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning the API notice verbatim, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (no mutation), nor does it explain what the notice is or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not stated.

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, concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It includes necessary scope ('this agent's QRChat room') and a key behavior ('verbatim') without extraneous words.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description does not explain the parameters, return format, or any behavioral details beyond a vague 'API notice.' Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (wait, limit, since_id). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 function: reading messages from the agent's QRChat room and returning the API notice verbatim. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('messages'), distinguishing it from siblings like qrchat_send_message and qrchat_room_info.

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 implies usage through the verb 'read' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative conditions, relying on the reader to infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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