读取微信聊天记录

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context about filtering capabilities (time range, limit), which is helpful. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the main purpose and key filtering options. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has an output schema and sibling tools, the description is minimal but adequate. It does not specify ordering, pagination, or behavior for missing chats. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value details.

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 explain parameters. It explains the 'chat' parameter can accept various identifiers, and mentions ISO-8601 for time parameters and limit. However, it does not explain the 'response_format' parameter. This provides moderate semantic value but is incomplete.

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 states the tool reads messages by contact nickname, remark, group name, or WeChat ID, with optional time and limit filters. This is specific about verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wechat_search_messages or wechat_recent_messages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wechat_search_messages or wechat_recent_messages. The description only explains what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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