get_next_new_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves '下一个' (next) new message, implying sequential or priority-based retrieval, but doesn't clarify what 'next' means (chronological, unread priority, etc.), whether it marks messages as read, or what happens when no new messages exist. For a message retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently structured in two parts: the core purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved with clearer separation between purpose and parameters, but it's appropriately concise.

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 a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While it covers the parameter well, it doesn't explain what 'next' means operationally, what format the returned message takes, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a message retrieval tool in a chat context, this leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'filter_mute' with its purpose ('是否过滤消息免打扰' - whether to filter muted messages) and default value ('默认false' - default false). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides complete parameter semantics beyond the bare schema, earning a high score.

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 verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '下一个聊天窗口的新消息' (next new message in chat window), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'get_unread_sessions', which appear to have overlapping functionality.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_messages', 'get_unread_sessions', and 'filter_sessions' available, there's no indication of when this specific 'next new message' retrieval is appropriate versus other message-fetching tools.

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