mfuns_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb '查看' (view) indicates a read-only operation, which is a positive behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or potential side effects (though likely none exist). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence overview followed by a clear Args list. No filler; every sentence provides essential information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core behavior and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably defined elsewhere. It lacks explicit notes about auth or pagination, but for a basic private message viewer, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. It explains the 'action' parameter's allowed values (list/read) with defaults, and specifies that 'user_id' is required for 'read'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and leaves no ambiguity about parameter usage.

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 states the tool views private message conversation lists or chat history with a user. It uses a specific verb (view) and resource (private messages), which adequately distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfuns_read_thread (public threads) and mfuns_browse. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it misses the full 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 Args section provides clear context for usage: action 'list' retrieves conversation lists (default), and 'read' retrieves chat history with a user, requiring user_id. This gives a clear sense of when to use each action though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like mfuns_read_thread.

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