wechat_get_recent_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of returned items (name, last message, time), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or scope limits, and gives no explicit read-only/side-effect confirmation for an agent that might otherwise assume it touches messages.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and return contents tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be moved earlier.

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 an output schema covering return values and full schema coverage on both parameters, the core call information is present. What is missing is usage context relative to the many read siblings (check_new_messages, get_chat_history), which leaves the agent to guess at routing.

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%: both 'recent' (with its English/Chinese time-range values) and 'chat_only' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (会话列表中的最近会话) and even names the returned fields (名称、最后一条消息与时间). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the closest read siblings like wechat_check_new_messages or wechat_get_chat_history.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for browsing the recent session list rather than for fetching message content.

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