从微信窗口提取待办

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it runs local heuristics, requires manual confirmation, and does not write to the task system. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns perfectly while adding actionable nuance.

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 sentence, which is concise but omits crucial parameter information. While the core purpose is front-loaded, the lack of structure (e.g., lists or bullet points) reduces its utility. It prioritizes brevity over completeness.

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?

The description does not explain return values despite the existence of an output schema, nor does it elaborate on the 5 parameters. It also fails to differentiate from closely related sibling tools like 'wechat_find_todos'. The tool's complexity (5 params, heuristics) demands richer context.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (chat, limit, min_score, scroll_pages, response_format). The agent cannot infer their meanings or defaults beyond basic schema types. This is a major gap for a tool with a required parameter.

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 extracts todos from OCR-read current chat messages using local heuristics. It specifies that results require manual confirmation and are not written to the task system. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wechat_find_todos' (likely non-UI) and 'wechat_read_chat'.

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 some usage context: results are unconfirmed and not auto-committed. However, it does not explicitly state when to or not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. The agent is left to infer appropriate use cases.

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