get_new_friends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get new friend request list) and mentions one parameter behavior. It doesn't describe what 'new' means (timeframe criteria), whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first states the tool's purpose, the second explains the parameter. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between purpose and parameter explanation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'new' friend requests, how results are returned, error handling, or how this differs from 'get_friends' and 'accept_new_friend'. For a tool in a rich context with many related tools, more completeness is needed.

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 description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema only shows 'acceptable' is a boolean with default true, but the description explains it means '是否过滤掉已接受的好友申请' (whether to filter out already accepted friend applications). This clarifies the parameter's purpose and effect, which isn't evident from the schema alone. With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates for the single parameter.

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 tool's purpose: '获取新的好友请求列表' (get new friend request list). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('新的好友请求列表' - new friend request list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_friends' or 'accept_new_friend', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to friends and messaging (get_friends, accept_new_friend, get_messages, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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