汇总单个微信聊天

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying the data returned (message count, participants, action items, recent messages), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any potential limits or performance aspects.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output and purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively. It lacks details on how to specify time ranges or message limits. However, an output schema exists, which may explain return values. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly mentions the 'chat' parameter ('指定聊天') but does not explain optional parameters like start_time, end_time, max_messages, or response_format. This provides minimal added meaning beyond 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 that the tool returns message count, participants, action items candidates, and recent messages for a specified chat, intended for model to generate a summary. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_read_chat and wechat_search_messages by aggregating summary data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wechat_read_chat or wechat_search_messages. Usage is implied for generating a summary, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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