fetch_wecom_doc

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core conversion action and notes supported file types, but fails to mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond an optional cookie, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence in Chinese—that immediately conveys the core action (fetch and convert) and scope (document types). It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word carries meaning.

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?

Given the presence of sibling auth tools and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., need for prior authentication via set_wecom_cookie), what happens if cookie is invalid, or the format of the returned Markdown. For a tool with two parameters and moderate complexity, this is insufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters: URL example and cookie explanation. The tool description adds general capability info but not parameter-specific details. Since the schema already covers parameter meanings, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: fetching WeCom document content and converting to Markdown, supporting various types like docs, tables, and slides. The name fetch_wecom_doc aligns perfectly, and siblings set_wecom_cookie and check_wecom_auth are distinct auth-related tools, making differentiation easy.

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 for converting WeCom documents to Markdown but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It mentions optional cookie but does not clarify if prior cookie setting (via sibling tool) is needed for successful fetch. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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