wechat-write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that despite the 'write' name, the tool is a read-oriented query/reference tool, not a publishing or rewriting tool. It does not disclose output structure, sort order, or whether full article content or just metadata is returned.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose before the mechanism. Minor redundancy between '写作参考' and '供创作参考' exists, but it does not hurt readability.

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?

For a simple keyword-based lookup tool, the description plus fully documented schema is workable: an agent knows to pass a keyword and can infer results are viral articles for reference. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from specifying whether results include titles, links, content snippets, or engagement metrics.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond rephrasing 'keyword' as the creative direction, but does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a WeChat Official Account viral-article writing reference that queries same-track hit articles by keyword. This distinguishes it from general search or rewriting tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase '供创作参考' implies the tool should be used during content creation to gather inspiration from viral articles. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance.

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