List cached mini programs

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does deliver the key fact – '无副作用' (no side effects), i.e. a safe read. It says nothing about prerequisites (does WeChat need to be running?), behavior on an empty cache, or result ordering, so the disclosure is minimal beyond the safety claim.

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 short sentences, zero filler: what it lists first, then the safety note and the intended downstream use. Fully front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete – it enumerates the returned fields in place of a missing output schema and flags the absence of side effects. Only environment prerequisites and empty-result behavior are left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No misleading parameter talk is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('列出本机微信缓存的所有小程序') and even enumerates the returned fields (appid, version, package count). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the analysis siblings by framing itself as the discovery step, though it never names them.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: '用来决定分析哪个 appid' – call this first to pick an appid, then presumably hand it to an analysis tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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