get_recent_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the return (recent friends, groups, latest message summaries) and flags it as a NapCat extension interface, but says nothing about auth/login requirements, ordering, or pagination behavior for a read endpoint.

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, which is good, but the ':param count' line duplicates the schema verbatim and '最近联系列表 / 最近会话列表' is a near-synonym pair, so there is mild redundancy.

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?

For a zero-required, one-parameter read tool this is adequate, but with no output schema the description should more concretely describe the shape of returned entries (fields per contact/conversation) rather than only naming the categories.

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 sole parameter (count, default 20) is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same :param line, adding no semantics beyond what structured data already provides.

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 specific verb and resource ('获取...最近联系列表/最近会话列表') and clarifies the payload covers both friends and group chats with latest message summaries. It is distinguishable from sibling get_recent_messages, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with it or with get_friend_msg_history/get_group_msg_history.

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 guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether get_recent_contact should be preferred over get_recent_messages or get_friend_list for the same conversational intent.

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