get_recent_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose a meaningful trait: the data is a cached, real-time-monitored buffer rather than a server-side history pull, which implies freshness and retention limits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how large/old the cache is, or how it relates to clear_recent_messages_buffer, so key behavioral context is missing.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded and describe the data source before the parameter list, which reads cleanly. However, the five ':param' lines duplicate already-complete schema descriptions, so a substantial portion of the text does not earn its place.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the data source and all filters but omits the shape of returned messages, any cache-size or recency bound, and the relationship to clear_recent_messages_buffer. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the ':param' lines restate the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does all the work.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('获取...缓存的近期 QQ 消息列表') and adds real scope: messages are captured live via WebSocket and cached by the MCP backend. That scope implicitly separates it from the history siblings get_friend_msg_history/get_group_msg_history, but it never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states what can be filtered (私聊/群聊, target QQ/群, keyword) which implies retrieval scenarios, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never contrasts itself with get_friend_msg_history, get_group_msg_history, or get_recent_contact. Usage must be inferred from the filter list.

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