get_message

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is irreversible ('无法撤销') and specifically acts on the first message in the queue. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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 short and front-loaded with the key destructive behavior, then the alternative tool, then the parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what happens, that it is irreversible, and when to use the sibling tool instead. No critical information is missing.

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. It provides the meaning of each parameter ('队列管理器名称', '队列名称') and concrete examples (QM1, DEV.QUEUE.1), which is adequate but does not add deep semantic detail beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('取走') and resource ('队列上的第一条消息'), and clearly explains that the message is removed from the queue. This distinguishes it immediately from browse_message, which is explicitly named as the non-destructive alternative.

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 explicitly provides the usage condition: use this tool to consume and remove the first message, and use browse_message when only viewing is desired. This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool for the non-destructive case.

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