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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves messages but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context, but it minimally covers the basic purpose.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('当前聊天窗口的所有消息' meaning 'all messages in the current chat window'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history' or 'get_next_new_message', which likely retrieve different message sets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active chat window), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'get_history' (which might retrieve historical messages) or 'get_next_new_message' (which might fetch incremental updates).

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