wecom_query_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without revealing if it's read-only, what preconditions exist (e.g., local storage must be populated), or how pagination works. Input schema implies pagination but description does not clarify.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and an output schema. It could be expanded to include important context without verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the local query nature, decryption context, or differentiate from wecom_pull_messages. The tool has several filters, but usage scenarios are omitted.

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% with each parameter having a Chinese description (e.g., limit, offset, filters). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 queries locally saved decrypted chat records, specifying the resource (locally saved decrypted records) and verb (query). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool wecom_pull_messages, which might pull from server, so a slight deduction.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like wecom_pull_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The single sentence provides only a basic description.

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