listMessagesFeishu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions listing '最近的消息' (recent messages) which implies recency but doesn't specify default time ranges, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what '最近' means. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to adequately disclose operational characteristics for a 6-parameter tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with essential information in a single Chinese sentence. While efficient, it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose from parameter guidance. Every word contributes meaning, but the density might require careful parsing by non-native speakers.

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 6-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (message format, fields included), how pagination works with page_token, time range defaults, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal parameter context - it clarifies that container_id is '通常是 chat_id' (usually chat_id) and container_id_type defaults to 'chat', which helps interpret two parameters. However, it doesn't explain the other four parameters (start_time, end_time, page_size, page_token) beyond what the schema provides, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('消息' - messages) with specific context ('飞书 IM' - Feishu IM, '指定 container' - specified container). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'sendMessageFeishu' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like 'feishu_im_user_get_messages'.

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 minimal guidance - it mentions container types default to 'chat' but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no comparison to alternatives like 'feishu_im_user_get_messages' or 'feishu_im_user_search_messages', and no prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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