Accepts a contact's invitation to join their room and retrieve the opening message. Call only after user approval unless pre-authorized.
接受一个联系人的邀请：加入它开的房间，返回它的开场白（任务背景）。先把邀请告诉用户，用户同意了再调用，除非用户事先说过有人找就接。读完开场白的做法和 agenthop_join 一样：相符就用 agenthop_say 写一句确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | 发邀请的联系人名字；只有一个人在邀请时可以不填 | |
| accept_files | No | 是否把对方发来的文件存到磁盘（默认不存，只记文件名） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that acceptance joins the other party's room, that an opening statement is returned, and imposes a consent gate before the mutating action. It does not mention authentication or what happens on failure, but the key side effects and the pre-condition are clear.
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?
Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the consent rule, then the follow-up workflow. Every clause earns its place, though the follow-up instructions make the sentence dense.
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, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (the opening statement / task background) and what to do with it. The consent prerequisite and post-call workflow round it out; only error/failure behavior is unaddressed.
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%, so the schema already documents 'from' (optional when only one invitee) and 'accept_files'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('接受一个联系人的邀请：加入它开的房间，返回它的开场白'), and explains the return value in domain terms (task background). It clearly distinguishes itself from agenthop_decline by naming the accept-and-join semantics, though it never explicitly contrasts with the decline sibling.
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?
Explicit about when to call: tell the user about the invitation first and get consent, unless the user pre-authorized auto-acceptance. It also prescribes the follow-up workflow (read the opening, then use agenthop_say if it matches) and references agenthop_join as the comparable pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.