从微信聊天中提取待办

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds transparency by noting it uses heuristic screening, requires manual confirmation, and does not create tasks or send messages. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it omits details about parameter effects.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core function and key constraint (manual confirmation). It is not verbose and front-loads the action. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameters or return values without becoming long.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present (which may document return values), the description should explain parameter usage (e.g., which chats are scanned, limit behavior). It only addresses 'days' indirectly. The tool's context is not fully specified, leaving gaps for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only implicitly references the 'days' parameter ('最近N天') and entirely ignores 'chats', 'limit', and 'response_format'. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema's field names.

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 it extracts to-do candidates from recent WeChat chats using heuristic filtering, with specific verb '筛选待办候选' and scope '最近N天的聊天文本'. It also distinguishes from automatic task creation, differentiating it from similar tools like wechat_find_todos_ui.

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 usage for initial candidate extraction requiring human confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wechat_find_todos_ui or wechat_search_messages. No explicit when-not or exclusion criteria.

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