lark_chat_watch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses blocking, 30s max poll, auto re-watch, probe mechanism with clear and timeout_ms, and guide in response. Minor omission of error handling.

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?

Four sentences covering key points without redundancy. Could be more structured but retains essential information efficiently.

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 output schema and complex behavior, description covers core flow: setup, blocking wait, timeout handling, probe usage. Lacks error scenarios but sufficient for correct invocation.

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%; description adds modest context (e.g., timeout_ms as expected total wait, clear as clear pending queue). But mostly restates schema with slight elaboration.

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 blocks waiting for new messages in a single group chat, mentions prerequisites (session/find, watch binding), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying '单群' (single group) and blocking behavior.

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?

Describes when to use (after session/find, or with chat_id), timeout behavior (auto re-watch), and probe usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use versus sibling tools like lark_chat_stream.

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