Check WeChat Game Build Output

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. It states it checks for warnings but does not describe side effects, error behavior, or output format, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns on success or failure, how to interpret results, or any constraints (e.g., timeout, file system access). More detail is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 only 25% (only outputDir has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-level information. The meaning of projectRoot, mainPackageLimitBytes, and totalPackageLimitBytes is not explained, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent despite their presence in the schema.

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 checks a local Cocos wechatgame build output for required files and package-size warnings. It differentiates from sibling check tools like cocos_local_check_editor_bridge by specifying 'wechatgame build output'. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes 'required files'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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