wechat_ide

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.