lark_list_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'view chat history messages' without mentioning pagination behavior, ordering, read-only status, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema hints at page_size, but the description does not elaborate on how pagination works or what is returned.

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 extremely concise—a single short phrase—and is front-loaded. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding informative content, making it under-specified rather than merely concise. It has no wasted words but also fails to provide meaningful guidance.

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?

Despite having a simple schema and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential behavioral context such as message ordering, pagination limits, or any constraints. With no annotations to supplement behavioral safety, the description falls short of adequately informing an agent about expected usage and outcomes.

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?

Both parameters (chat_id and page_size) are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions and a default value, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers them, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '查看聊天历史消息' clearly indicates a message retrieval operation for chat history, using a specific verb ('view') and resource ('chat messages'). It is understandable but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like listing chats or sending messages, so it lacks full 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lark_send_message or lark_list_chats, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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