草稿总数

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds nothing beyond that — no information about response shape, whether it is a plain integer, whether it counts drafts in all states, or whether it has any limits — so it provides almost no behavioral context.

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?

It consists of one short sentence with no wasted words, and the purpose is stated up front. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the missing usage context.

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 no-parameter, read-only count tool this is minimal but workable. Because there is no output schema, the description could state what is returned, such as whether it is a plain number and whether it counts drafts across all statuses; that information is currently absent.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no semantic gaps exist.

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?

"获取草稿总数" states a verb (get) and a resource (draft count), so what the tool does is understandable. However, it essentially restates the name and title (草稿总数) and adds no scope information — such as whether it counts all drafts or a filtered subset — and it does not distinguish itself from wechat_list_drafts.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the very similar sibling wechat_list_drafts. It does not state exclusions, preconditions, or when a count would be preferred over listing drafts, so it offers no usage guidance.

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