wecom_pull_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool decrypts messages, returns a list, and auto-updates seq, and optionally saves to file. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data), prerequisites, or error handling. Some behavioral aspects are transparent, but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise with two sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence adds value—purpose first, then continuation and update behavior. No redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation) and parameters are fully documented, the description adequately covers the core process. It explains the pull-decrypt-update workflow. Missing some edge-case context (e.g., what happens if seq is invalid), but overall sufficient for a straightforward data pull tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and save_to_file) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it pulls and decrypts chat records from the WeCom session archive SDK, continuing from a saved seq position. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings like wecom_get_seq (which only gets seq) and wecom_query_messages (which likely queries without pulling/decrypting).

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 implies usage for continuous pulling from a saved seq, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wecom_query_messages, wecom_get_seq) or provide conditions for not using it. The context is clear but lacks direct guidelines.

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