getSystemMsgList

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 discloses that Token and userAgent are required, which is a useful prerequisite, but it does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a read-style list tool, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and requirement. No redundant wording.

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?

For a simple 4-param list getter with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auth need. It doesn't detail response structure or pagination semantics, but the schema's offset/limit imply it. A bit more context on expected return could improve it.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (offset, limit, token, userAgent each have Chinese descriptions), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('获取系统消息列表') and clearly identifies the resource (system messages on the Shendao platform), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target maps, user profiles, comments, etc.

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 states the required auth prerequisites (Token and user request header) but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage for system message retrieval, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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