push_wechat_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically validates context_token before sending, and details the two branches (valid → push directly; invalid → return guidance to call acquire_token and send a message to the bot). This goes beyond the bare 'push' action and covers the prerequisite flow, which is valuable behavioral context.

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, information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the core action and then explains the token validation logic and usage context. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact; still well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main flow (token validation, usage context) but does not describe the return value on successful push, nor does it mention the auto_acquire parameter (even though the schema covers it). For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the missing success-return specification is a minor gap, so it's adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100% as both 'text' and 'auto_acquire' have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions token validation but does not elaborate on parameter specifics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 verb ('push') and resource ('text message to user's personal WeChat/ClawBot'), and specifies the scope ('WB automation after scheduled/triggered tasks'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly referencing acquire_token as a prerequisite and describing the token validation flow, making it unmistakable which tool this is.

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 gives clear context: 'for WB automation after scheduled/triggered tasks' and explicitly states that if the token is missing/expired, one should call acquire_token first. While it doesn't mention bridge_status, the usage scenario and interaction with acquire_token are clearly outlined, providing sufficient guidance for when to use this tool.

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