yunyu_query_context

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

No annotations are provided,so description carries full burden. The description mentions 'read' but omits the safety gate: the confirmed parameter must be true to execute. This critical behavioral trait (default false, no read without confirmation) is not disclosed in the description.

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 in Chinese, concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, but could be more structured with additional contextual detail.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate number of siblings, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral nuance (confirmation), and details about the returned context format.

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 50% (only confirmed described). The description itself does not explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. The query parameter lacks description but the tool name implies it's the search query. Baseline 3 due to moderate coverage; no additional value added.

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 action: calling a local knowledge base route search to read context related to the current mini-program/business. It specifies verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like miniapp_relevant_context or miniapp_docs_lookup.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for reading context, but does not specify scenarios where it is preferred over other context-related tools.

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