message.list-chats

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

This description adds behavioral detail beyond a generic 'fetch' by mentioning that it uses 'session.sync 基线' and optionally 'WS 增量补 cid' — revealing a sync-based mechanism with optional websocket supplementation. Since no annotations are provided, this is useful context, but it omits critical behavioral disclosures such as whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, whether it blocks, or what happens when watch_secs is set.

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 very short and the primary usage is front-loaded, which is good. However, the second half relies on domain-specific abbreviations ('WS', 'cid', 'session.sync') that are not self-explanatory, making it dense rather than ideally concise.

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 no annotations, two parameters, and zero schema field documentation, the description leaves major gaps: parameter meanings, return behavior beyond the output schema, and invocation prerequisites. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool with correct parameter values.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly explain fetch_num or watch_secs. The mention of '可选 WS 增量' hints at watch behavior and likely relates to watch_secs, but this is indirect and incomplete; fetch_num remains entirely unexplained.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: '拉取会话列表（左栏）' (fetch chat list, left sidebar). This establishes what the tool does and its UI context. However, the internal jargon 'session.sync 基线 + 可选 WS 增量补 cid' is opaque and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like message.watch or message.history beyond the 'left sidebar' hint.

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 phrase '左栏' implies the tool is intended for loading the left-sidebar conversation list, which gives some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus message.history, message.watch, or other siblings, and no mention of when not to use it.

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