wechat_check_new_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at read-only polling by describing a 'check' that returns unread sessions, but it never states whether calling it clears/marks messages as read, what the time window is, or how it interacts with server-side state — a critical ambiguity for a message-checking tool.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the action and the return payload, with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the side-effect questions it leaves open.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter schema is trivial. What remains missing is the side-effect/refresh semantics (does checking consume unread state, and over what window), which matters for a message-polling tool with no annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is missing or misstated.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (check new messages in the session list) and states what is returned (unread sessions with their latest content). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling wechat_get_recent_sessions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies a polling/refresh use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of wechat_get_recent_sessions or wechat_get_chat_history. Usage is inferable from the wording rather than stated.

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