Get Messages

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing behavioral on top of it – no scope, no pagination, no result count, no filtering semantics. The bar is lower with annotations present, but the description contributes zero additional context.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally fine. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness of a complete definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter signature keeps the calling surface simple. What is missing is the disambiguation an agent needs against five sibling notification/notice tools, which is essential context the description never supplies.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also reported at 100%.

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 '获取消息通知' (get message notifications) restates the tool name/title with only a marginal clarification that the resource is notifications. It offers no differentiation from the many near-identical siblings (get_notifications, list_realtime_notices, list_periodic_notices, list_expiry_notices, get_notification_log), so an agent cannot tell which one to pick on purpose alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative. Given at least five sibling tools that all appear to deal with notices/notifications, this omission is the most damaging gap in the definition.

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