wechat_status

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 states what information is retrieved but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it requires authentication, its read-only nature, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a sensitive system like WeChat.

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 redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core action and lists the three status components clearly, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity of interacting with WeChat (a messaging platform with potential authentication and state management), the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema), doesn't explain behavioral aspects like safety or dependencies, and doesn't guide usage relative to siblings. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to ensure proper agent invocation.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero parameters, since no compensation is required.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('微信运行状态' meaning 'WeChat running status'), and lists the three components it retrieves: online status, account information, and activation status. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wechat_check_activation' or 'get_my_info', but the scope is well-defined.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether WeChat must be initialized), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'wechat_check_activation' (which might check activation only) or 'get_my_info' (which might retrieve different account details).

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