wecom_describe_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation returning an action list, but doesn't disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or behavioral constraints beyond its stated purpose.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for enhanced readability.

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 simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality. It could mention that the returned action list contains names of available actions, but this is not critical.

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 'tool' parameter (specify a wecom_* tool or omit for all) but does not clarify the 'action' parameter (optional string/null) and its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover both parameters adequately.

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's action: return action lists for wecom_* tools, with a specific condition (all tools when unspecified). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions rather than describe them.

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 use via the 'tool' parameter to get actions for a specific tool or omit to get all. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context with siblings makes it clear this is a meta-information tool.

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