wechat_inspector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds concrete behavioral context: two acquisition protocols, the cdp pre-condition, and the JSON response envelope {success, data:{logs, summary}, message}. 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 sentences, no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the action/prerequisite/return-format sections are each one line. Easily scannable.

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?

Between the description, detailed nested parameter docs, and the available output schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke either action. Minor gap: the cdp port prerequisite is stated as a fixed 9222 rather than tied to the cdp_port parameter, but the default matches.

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 already documents all nested parameters with descriptions, including duration behavior and log_type. The description adds semantic value by explaining what each action value means and reiterating the cdp port requirement, which the bare schema enum does not provide.

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?

Opens with '采集小程序运行时日志和异常' – a specific verb and object. The two actions (console vs cdp) map to distinct log sources, which separates it from siblings like wechat_build or wechat_screenshot. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states that the cdp action requires opening the project with cdp_enabled=true and a usable port 9222, and separates what each action collects (console/JS exceptions vs WXML/render/deprecated-API logs). It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the internal action guidance is clear.

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