Read bridged conversation state, recent progress, final replies, and user messages. Check returnRoute and lastReturn to verify auto-return receipts; identify held or paused states to prevent resends.
读取原客户端状态、近期进度、最终回复、用户消息和问题。returnRoute 显示自动回传是否开启，lastReturn 显示最近回传回执；held 表示接收方暂存、尚未交给模型，不代表回传未开启，不得重发。桥接状态 paused 表示暂停，即使原客户端状态变化也需明确恢复。truncated=true 表示省略了较早历史；idle 只表示空闲，不代表审查通过。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It explains the meaning of returnRoute, lastReturn, held, paused, truncated, and idle, and explicitly warns against common misinterpretations: held does not mean return is disabled, and idle does not mean review passed. This prevents dangerous errors.
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 dense but every clause contributes meaning about a state or field. It could be slightly more readable with bullet points, but there is no filler or repetition.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description rightly explains many return-field semantics and edge cases. However, it completely omits the meaning of the sole input parameter, alias, and does not describe the overall response structure. An agent can interpret results but may not know how to target the correct resource.
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 only required parameter, alias, is never mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides no meaning for what alias identifies, what values are valid beyond the regex, or how it relates to the workspace/list context. This is a major gap.
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 opens with a specific verb ('读取') and identifies a clear resource set: original client state, recent progress, final reply, user messages, and questions. This clearly marks it as a read/status tool distinct from write-oriented siblings like talk_send or talk_create, though it never explicitly names a sibling for differentiation.
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 interpretive rules: 'held' means the recipient is holding the message and it must not be resent; 'paused' requires explicit recovery; 'idle' does not mean approval. These are strong when-not/conditional behaviors, but the description does not state when to choose talk_read over alternatives such as talk_list or talk_follow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.