Search cached WeChat articles by keyword via ReadGZH. Searches in article titles and content. Returns matching articles with snippets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 5, max 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search keyword to find in article titles or content |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behaviors. It mentions cached articles and snippets but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or cache freshness.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose and scope.
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 search tool, description covers main behavior and output. Could mention caching implications or result fields, but adequate overall.
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 baseline 3. The description rephrases the schema's parameter info without adding new meaning.
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 searches cached WeChat articles by keyword in titles and content, returning snippets. This distinguishes it from siblings like get, list, and read.
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?
Usage is implied as searching by keyword, but no explicit guidance on when to use over siblings or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get by slug, list recent, list by account, read by URL, and search by keyword. The descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each, with no overlapping boundaries.
All tool names are simple, lowercase verbs or verb phrases (get, list, list_by_account, read, search) following a consistent pattern. No mixed conventions or vague names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused server that caches and retrieves WeChat articles. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy or excess.
The tool surface covers all core discovery and reading workflows: browsing recent articles, searching by keyword, filtering by account, reading by URL, and retrieving cached articles by slug. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.