talk_follow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool starts ongoing message forwarding, waits when the receiving side is busy, requires explicit resumption after a pause, and depends on a live MCP process and original client. This goes well beyond the schema, though it omits details like return behavior or how pausing is triggered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then adds the operational constraints in short, clear sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must fully equip the agent to call the tool correctly. It explains behavior and runtime requirements but omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and how to stop or resume the follow state, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain source, destination, or enabled. The terms '发起方' and '接收方' hint at the destination and receiving side, and '开启后' loosely maps to enabled, but the mapping is indirect and not sufficient for an agent to confidently construct arguments.

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 states a specific action: after being enabled, it relays DSH final replies, questions, abnormal endings, and user-intervention messages back to the initiating Codex/Claude conversation. This gives a clear verb, resource, and message scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like talk_send or talk_read.

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 useful operational context: wait when the receiver is busy, explicitly resume after pausing, and keep an MCP process and the original client running. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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