get_recent_contact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read operation and that results include message summaries, but it says nothing about ordering, freshness, whether results come from a buffer (a clear_recent_messages_buffer sibling exists), or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and appropriately short for a one-parameter read tool. The trailing ':param count:' docstring-style line is slightly awkward leakage but adds no bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape; it partially does by naming the categories of data returned (friends, groups, message summaries). It still omits list structure, ordering, and error/empty cases, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 single 'count' parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description merely restates '返回的最近会话数量，默认 20'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the work and no additional semantics (e.g. max value, ordering effect) are added.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair ('获取...最近联系列表 / 最近会话列表') and even enumerates what the list contains (recent friends, groups, latest message summaries). It does not, however, differentiate itself from similar siblings such as get_recent_messages or get_friend_list, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions the closely related get_recent_messages or get_recent_notices_and_requests, nor any prerequisite (e.g. being logged in), so the agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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