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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the return envelope {success, data, message, error_code?}, which is helpful, but it does not disclose that actions like set_data and mock_wx mutate runtime state or that start launches/attaches to an automation session with timeout behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact action inventory and a one-line return contract. Every line conveys actionable information with no filler.

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 little elaboration, and the action inventory is complete. However, for a complex multi-action automation tool, the description omits essential operational context: start-before-use sequencing, environment prerequisites, and how this tool differs from the sibling inspector/navigate tools.

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?

Although the reported top-level coverage is 0%, the nested schema actually documents every field with action-conditional requirements (selector for tap/input, value for input, data_json for set_data, etc.). The description's action list adds only marginal semantics beyond the enum; the detailed parameter meaning is carried by the schema, so 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 names the resource (小程序) and gives a concrete action taxonomy with short glosses for each action, so an agent can tell what family of operations the tool performs. It does not, however, distinguish this aggregate automator from siblings like wechat_inspector or wechat_navigate, which likely overlap with element_info and page_stack.

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?

Listing actions such as start(开启自动化) implies that automation must be started before interactive calls, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings, no statement of prerequisites like DevTools being open or a project being loaded, and no guidance on choosing among the 13 actions.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return envelope {success, data, message, error_code?} but does not disclose real side effects: upload publishes a version, cache_clean irreversibly clears state, and most actions require a running IDE. That's useful framing but not full disclosure.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: capability, action list, return shape. There is minor redundancy in re-describing the return value when an output schema exists, and the action list is terse enough to be ambiguous, but nothing is padded.

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 13-field, multi-mode tool this is thin: no statement that the WeChat IDE must be open (or which sibling opens it), no per-action parameter expectations, and no warning about upload's external visibility. The existing output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the operational preconditions are missing.

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 description restates the action enum with short glosses (compile=编译检查, upload=上传), which adds meaning beyond the bare enum whose schema description is only '操作类型'. However, it says nothing about the cross-field requirements (version/desc only for upload, cdp_port/cache_clean only for compile), leaving the 13 nested fields entirely to the schema. The reported schema coverage of 0% at the top level pushes this toward the baseline rather than above it.

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 specific verbs (构建/预览/上传/npm 管理) and a concrete resource (小程序), and enumerates the five actions, so the agent can tell this is the build-and-release tool rather than execution or inspection. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like wechat_ide or wechat_automator, which keeps it at 4.

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 action list implies when each mode applies (compile for checking, preview for previewing, upload for release), but there is no explicit 'use this when…, use X instead' guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as the IDE being open. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the JSON return structure ({success, data, message, error_code?}) and enumerates the supported actions, which gives further behavioral clarity. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the description complements the safety profile without duplicating it.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose, lists the actions, and states the return format. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly compact for the amount of information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields extensively, and it does provide the top-level JSON shape. However, it does not explain parameter relationships or optionality (e.g., which paths are required for which actions), which an agent would need to call the tool correctly. Given the tool's multi-action nature and optional parameters, this is a noticeable gap, though not critical for a read-only tool.

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 description explains the meaning of the 'action' enum values (project_info, list_pages, read_page, read_file) but does not clarify the roles of 'file_path', 'page_path', or 'project_path', nor the dependencies (e.g., read_page requires page_path). The schema provides descriptions for each field, but the context signal indicates 0% description coverage, meaning the tool description does not substitute for that. The description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 reads WeChat mini program project files and structure, and lists four distinct actions (project_info, list_pages, read_page, read_file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_navigate or wechat_screenshot, which have different purposes. The verb '读取' and resource '小程序项目文件' make the purpose explicit and unmistakeable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the available actions imply its scope (reading project files). It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would steer an agent to a sibling tool. Context is clear but there is no comparative guidance, so it remains adequate rather than optimal.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds value by disclosing the return JSON structure and clarifying each action's behavior (e.g., login requires QR scan), but it does not detail side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences plus a compact action list, front-loading the core purpose and return format with zero redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity, the annotations (safety hints) and output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: it names the resource, lists actions, and states the return shape. Minor gaps exist around inter-tool dependencies and parameter requirements, but the schema covers parameter details.

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 description enriches the 'action' parameter by explaining each enum value (e.g., open opens IDE/project, login does QR login), which is not fully covered in the schema's generic 'operation type' description. However, it does not address the other parameters (port, appid, project_path, etc.), leaving the schema to carry that burden; baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's own descriptions for those fields.

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 explicitly states the tool manages the WeChat DevTools IDE lifecycle and lists the supported actions (open, login, is_login, close, quit, status), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like wechat_build or wechat_screenshot.

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 through the action list but does not explicitly state when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to the other wechat_* tools. An agent must infer that it should use this tool to manage IDE state before other operations.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the cdp setup requirement and the returned JSON envelope. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then gives the action distinctions, cdp prerequisite, and return shape in a compact form. The return-shape line is slightly redundant with the output schema, but it is brief and does not obscure the call guidance.

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 annotations and output schema, the description covers the core decision of which action to use and the critical cdp setup requirement. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could add sibling-alternative guidance for a perfect score.

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 description adds meaning beyond the action enum by explaining what console and cdp each capture, and it adds the cdp port/setup prerequisite. The schema already documents the individual nested parameters and defaults, though the description does not explain every optional parameter.

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 and resource: collecting mini-program runtime logs and exceptions. It also distinguishes the two supported capture modes, console and cdp, making the tool clearly separate from siblings like screenshot, navigate, build, and file.

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?

It explicitly maps console to automator-port console logs and JS exceptions, and cdp to lower-level WXML warnings, render-layer errors, and deprecated API notices. It also gives the cdp prerequisite: open the project with cdp_enabled=true and ensure port 9222 is available. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the required session setup, that logs are captured via CDP after a wait, and that navigation triggers page lifecycle hooks. The safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent) is already covered by annotations, so the description fills in operational context rather than repeating it.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then scenarios, then prerequisites, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. The return-value line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists but is short.

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?

A moderate-complexity mutation-ish tool with 9 parameters and an output schema; the description covers purpose, scenarios, prerequisites, and output shape, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits side effects on page state (navigation resets the current page) but nothing critical blocks invocation.

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 schema itself carries detailed per-field descriptions (timeout, wait_ms, cdp_port, detail_level, etc.), so parameter meaning is largely covered upstream. The description only alludes to waiting ('等待指定时间') and log collection, adding little syntax or coupling guidance 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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair — navigate to a page and collect CDP logs — and adds the waiting behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wechat_inspector or wechat_screenshot, which agents could confuse with log/debug inspection.

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?

It names concrete scenarios (checking onLoad/onShow lifecycle logs, verifying page errors) and a hard prerequisite (wechat_automator(action='start') with cdp_enabled=true). It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to pick for pure inspection.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals that the tool auto-scrolls and stitches long screenshots by default, that output_path can be omitted to save to screenshots/, and that the response is a JSON object with success, data.path/width/height/segments, and message. These behavioral details help the agent anticipate side effects and response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding new information: purpose, long-screenshot default, output_path default, return format. The most important action and defaults are front-loaded. No redundant or marketing language.

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 screenshot tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers the key defaults and return format. It does not mention prerequisites like the simulator being open or the meaning of 'segments', but these are minor given the existing schema and annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only details output_path's default location and implicitly full_page's default. Parameters like overlap, auto_port, page_path, and scroll_top are not explained in the description, requiring the agent to inspect the nested $defs. The $defs do contain descriptions, which mitigates this, but the description itself adds little parametric meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '实时捕获当前小程序模拟器的界面截图' (capture the current mini-program simulator interface screenshot in real-time). It further clarifies the long-screenshot default and references the output path and return JSON, leaving no doubt about the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_build or wechat_navigate.

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 clear context that this is for capturing screenshots of the simulator and mentions default long-screenshot behavior. It does not, however, name any sibling tools or state when to prefer this over wechat_inspector or wechat_automator. A brief 'use this when you need a screenshot' would have been stronger, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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