webchat_get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, sorting, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The implicit read nature is clear, but more context is needed.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is lacking. It does not explain return format, default behavior (e.g., ordering, maximum results), or how pagination works. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by noting the mutual exclusivity of account_id and group_id. However, it does not explain the remaining three parameters (keyword, pagesize, pageindex) which are crucial for usage. Partial improvement over schema.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves message records with someone or a group ('获取与某人或某群的消息记录'), using a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like webchat_get_message_by_id or webchat_get_chat_list, so it loses a point.

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 guidance on parameter selection by noting 'account_id 和 group_id 二选一' (choose one), but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons. It does not mention when to prefer this over related tools like webchat_get_message_count.

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