feishu_im_user_get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses important behavioral traits: authentication context ('以用户身份'), pagination behavior, time filtering options, parameter constraints (mutual exclusivity rules), and return format details. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions needed, or error conditions, but covers most essential operational aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (usage, parameter constraints, return format) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with complex constraints. The only minor issue is some redundancy with schema descriptions, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a complex message retrieval tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains authentication context, parameter constraints, filtering options, pagination, and return format. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but given the schema's 100% description coverage and the detailed behavioral context provided, it's mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the semantic relationships between parameters: 'open_id 和 chat_id 必须二选一' (must choose one), 'relative_time 和 start_time/end_time 不能同时使用' (cannot use together), and clarifying that open_id '自动解析 chat_id' (automatically resolves to chat_id). It also provides practical examples of relative_time formats.

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 purpose: '获取群聊或单聊的历史消息' (get historical messages from group or private chats). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('历史消息' - historical messages), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'feishu_im_user_search_messages' (search messages) by focusing on retrieval from specific chats rather than searching across chats.

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 provides clear usage context: '以用户身份' (as a user identity) and explains how to use chat_id vs open_id for different chat types. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feishu_im_user_search_messages' (search messages) or 'listMessagesFeishu', which appears to be a similar tool. The guidance is good but lacks sibling differentiation.

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