获取草稿

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond the annotation, the description adds its value by listing the returned fields. It is silent, however, on rate limits, error behavior when media_id is invalid, and whether the preview link expires; those would be the natural next details.

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 is a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical enumeration of return fields earns its place because there is no output schema. The trailing 等 is slightly vague, but overall the sentence is tight.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to complete: the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the return fields are described because no output schema exists. The notable gap is that it doesn't say how the agent gets a media_id, for example through wechat_list_drafts or wechat_create_draft, or what a failure looks like.

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 is only one parameter, and the schema already fully documents it as "草稿 media_id" (schema coverage is 100%), so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't add any detail about valid formats or where to obtain the media_id. That is acceptable, because the schema does the work here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("获取草稿详情") and enumerates the returned fields (title, body, cover, preview link), so the agent knows it fetches a single draft's full content. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from wechat_list_drafts or wechat_get_publish_status, but the word 详情 and its singular focus make its role reasonably clear.

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 implies usage: look up an existing draft by its media_id to inspect the full content of its articles. It does not explain when to choose this tool over wechat_list_drafts, when it should not be used, or what happens with a stale or invalid media_id. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the sibling list.

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