search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the global search scope and that it looks at message content, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or pagination behavior.

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 in Chinese, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 is simple, with clearly defined parameters and an output schema. The description adequately conveys the core functionality, though it could benefit from a note on usage boundaries relative to sibling tools.

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 input schema fully documents both keyword and limit with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 that searching all chat records for messages containing the keyword is the tool's function. It uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the scope as 'all chat records,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve sessions, history by chat, or contacts.

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 the tool is for keyword-based search across all chats but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over get_chat_history or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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