wechat-prohibited-word

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core read-only behavior of checking content for sensitive expressions, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it lists offending words, or any limitations such as false positives or coverage scope.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second clause '检查文案中的敏感表述' partially restates the first clause, making it slightly redundant even though it adds a bit of nuance about sensitive expressions.

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?

There is no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns, such as whether it returns a pass/fail result, a list of prohibited words, or a risk score. Since annotations are absent, the description needed to cover the return value expectations but did not, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent that must interpret results.

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 100%, so the parameter 'content' is already documented as '待检测文案内容'. The description adds only marginal context by calling the input '文案', which aligns with the schema but does not add new constraints like length limits, language, or formatting expectations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '检测'/'检查' applied to '公众号违禁词' (WeChat official account prohibited words). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling platform-specific tools like xiaohongshu-prohibited-word and douyin-prohibited-word by naming the 公众号 platform.

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 usage context is implied through the platform name: use this tool for detecting prohibited words in WeChat official account copy. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as douyin-prohibited-word or xiaohongshu-prohibited-word.

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