talk_outbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it defines status semantics ('queued', 'unknown/sending/held', 'observed') and imposes a behavioral rule ('不得重发'). It also signals read-only intent via '读取', though it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or output shape.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only the essential status interpretations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and their meanings. It could be more explicit about the output format or the meaning of '自动回传错误', but for a low-complexity status-reading tool it is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description instead focuses on what the returned statuses mean.

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 a specific verb and resource: '读取近期回执、自动回传错误和事件连接状态' (read recent receipts, automatic callback errors, and event connection status). This distinguishes talk_outbox from siblings like talk_send and talk_read by focusing on delivery status and receipts, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 actionable usage context: 'queued 表示排队中，可以等待；unknown/sending/held 不得重发' tells the agent when it is safe to wait and when resending is forbidden. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the status-specific guidance gives clear operational direction.

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