检查本地微信接入状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds explicit statement that it does not read or return chat content, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states action and components, second clarifies what it does not do. Both are concise and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. Description covers what it checks and what it avoids, but could mention that it can be used as a prerequisite check before other WeChat tools. Still adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, so description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description is sufficient.

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 title is in Chinese but clearly means 'Check local WeChat access status'. The description specifies read-only check of version, DB, key file, and snapshot readiness. It distinguishes from chat-reading tools by stating it does not read chat content. Clearly defines verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings.

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 this is a safe, non-invasive check but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like wechat_ui_diagnose or wechat_list_chats. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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