read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect: reading marks messages as read (读后标为已读). It also explains what include_read changes about the result set. It omits return format and whether the read-state change is reversible, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the core behavior (unread retrieval plus auto-mark-read) front-loaded before the optional flag. No filler.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the key operational fact (messages are marked read) and the include_read behavior are covered. Return shape and ordering/pagination are not described, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented; the description only restates include_read with marginally more meaning ('显示最近的全部消息') and says nothing about limit or project. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('读取给你的未读消息') and scopes it to messages addressed to the caller. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like send_message or bridge_overview, so it stops short of a 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?

It implicitly tells the agent this is the way to retrieve incoming messages and clarifies the include_read toggle, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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