wechat_check_activation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose ('check activation status') without detailing what the check entails (e.g., returns boolean status, detailed info, requires authentication, has side effects, or rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple check operation and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., activation state details) or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'wechat_activate'. For a status-check tool in a WeChat context, more context on output or usage would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for checking status. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description aligns with the schema.

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 action ('检查' meaning 'check') and the resource ('wxautox4 激活状态' meaning 'wxautox4 activation status'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'wechat_status' or 'wechat_activate', which appear related to WeChat status/activation, leaving some ambiguity about differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'wechat_status' and 'wechat_activate', it's unclear if this checks a specific component (wxautox4) versus general status, or if it's a prerequisite for other operations. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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