Chat Read

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: DICE_ROLL messages are excluded from chat history and must be retrieved via events_poll. This is meaningful context beyond the tool name and schema, though it does not discuss pagination or ordering.

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?

A single efficient sentence states the core purpose and adds the key caveat in parentheses. Every part earns its place and the important routing note is clearly included.

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?

This is a simple read tool with an output schema and two self-explanatory optional parameters. The description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral exception. However, a fully complete description would also briefly clarify pagination semantics for limit/offset given the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the limit or offset parameters. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and default values, with no explicit semantics provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('翻' = browse/read) and a clear resource ('聊天记录' = chat history). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from events_poll by noting that DICE_ROLL messages are not in chat history, so the agent can tell it apart from relevant siblings.

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 says DICE_ROLL entries are not part of the chat history and directs the agent to use events_poll for dice history. This gives an explicit when-not-to-use condition and names the correct alternative.

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