已发布文章列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that results are paginated and restricted to successfully published articles, which is real extra context. It says nothing about ordering, what happens for empty result sets, or that no_content defaults to true and strips the article body.

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 with zero filler, and the pagination qualifier comes first. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it is efficient but leaves no room for the routing detail an agent needs.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema, the essential call information is present, and no output schema means return-shape detail is not mandatory. Still, the description omits the 1-20 count cap and the fact that article bodies are excluded by default, both of which materially shape the result.

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 all three parameters (count, offset, no_content) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the pagination concept and adds no further semantics such as ordering of the offset window or the cost of setting no_content=false. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb + resource (分页获取 / 已发布文章列表) and adds a scope qualifier, 'already successfully published', which implicitly separates it from the draft-listing siblings. It stops short of naming wechat_list_drafts or wechat_get_publish_status explicitly, so the distinction must be inferred from the tool name.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, even though the sibling set contains obvious near-collisions (wechat_list_drafts, wechat_get_publish_status, wechat_count_drafts). The agent must derive the choice purely from the words 'published' vs 'draft'.

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