wecom_misc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. Only the action parameter hints at behavior, but no specifics are given.

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 very short but lacks clarity. It is not concise in a helpful way; instead, it is cryptic and under-specified. Every sentence should add value, but this one only lists a few function families without explanation.

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 as a miscellaneous function holder and the presence of many specific sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, the expected inputs/outputs (despite having an output schema), or how it relates to other tools.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description lists some action names ('product_album_*', '*_intercept_rule', 'get_new_external_userid') but does not explain the 'action' parameter's possible values or the 'params' structure. The agent cannot infer how to use the parameters from the description alone.

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 lists some function prefixes and a specific function name but does not explain the overall purpose of the tool. '附加功能' (additional functions) provides a vague sense that it covers miscellaneous operations, but it's unclear what the tool does as a whole. Siblings like wecom_customer and wecom_tag are specific, but this one is a catch-all without definition.

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 its siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent has no information to decide between wecom_misc and other tools for a given task.

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