wecom_acquisition

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

No behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, read-only, side effects) are disclosed. The description only lists actions without indicating consequences or requirements. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails.

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, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks necessary structure and depth.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, action purposes, or parameter usage. For a multi-action tool, this is severely incomplete.

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 lists valid values for the 'action' parameter, which adds some guidance beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'params' object or the semantics of each action, leaving parameter meaning unclear. Schema coverage is 0%.

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 identifies the tool as '获客助手' (Acquisition Assistant) and lists available actions, but does not clarify what acquisition means in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like wecom_contact_way or wecom_customer. The purpose is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for use. The description lacks any usage context.

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