feishu_im_user_get_thread_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 by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the tool operates '以用户身份' (as user identity), mentions pagination behavior, reveals the API limitation about time range filtering, and describes the return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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: purpose statement, usage instructions, and important notes. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the Chinese formatting with brackets and bullet points could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, particularly the API limitation warning.

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 read-only list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, important limitations, and the return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return format matches 'feishu_im_user_get_messages', which provides adequate reference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only mentions that thread_id uses 'omt_xxx' format and that pagination is supported. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('话题内的消息列表' meaning 'message list within a thread'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'feishu_im_user_get_messages' by specifying it's for thread messages rather than general messages. The Chinese text '【以用户身份】' (as user identity) further clarifies the access context.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use (via thread_id to get all messages in a thread), mentions pagination support, and importantly states when NOT to use by noting '话题消息不支持时间范围过滤' (thread messages don't support time range filtering) due to API limitations. This clearly distinguishes it from tools like 'feishu_im_user_search_messages' that might support filtering.

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