search_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be safe and non-destructive. The description adds useful scoping context ('可限定会话和时间范围') but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, default limits, or whether results are ordered, which are not covered by annotations.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the optional constraints are stated naturally. It is as short as possible while still conveying the primary purpose and main filtering dimensions.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It gives a minimally viable search invocation but omits return-value expectations, pagination defaults, filter interactions, and context-window behavior, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and correct calling in complex cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only glosses over three concept areas: keyword, session, and time range. It does not clarify the relationship between date and start_time/end_time, the meaning of sender_id, text_only, message_types, context_before/after, or context_scan_limit, leaving most of the 12 parameters underspecified.

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 clearly identifies the action ('按关键词搜索') and the resource ('微信聊天记录'), while also noting optional scoping by session and time range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_messages, get_messages_by_sender, and search_wechat_attachment_text, which target different resource types or operations.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when searching chat messages by keyword with optional session/time filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, such as get_message_context or search_wechat_attachment_text, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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