get_friend_msg_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source (NapCat) and the paging direction when message_seq is omitted, which is genuinely useful behavior, but it says nothing about result ordering guarantees, how count interacts with message_seq, permissions, or rate limits.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter notes. It is efficient, though the param lines are pure duplication of the schema and thus slightly wasted space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally describe the returned message structure or pagination contract. It covers inputs adequately but leaves the return shape and pagination semantics unstated, which is a real gap for a history-fetch 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%, and the description simply restates the same three parameter descriptions verbatim (user_id, count default 20, message_seq optional). It adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: retrieve historical private chat messages with a specified friend, and names the upstream API (NapCat OneBot 11 get_friend_msg_history). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools by resource type (friend vs group), though it never explicitly contrasts with get_group_msg_history or get_recent_messages.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_group_msg_history or get_recent_messages. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the note that omitting message_seq pulls from the newest message backward.

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