get_saved_article

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds mild value by specifying what is returned — body text plus an image list — but says nothing about not-found behavior, error handling, or how the content is structured. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and output contents all appear in the first clause, and there is nothing unnecessary to trim.

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 1-parameter, read-only, annotation-covered tool, the description—along with the schema pattern and annotations—is mostly adequate and hints at return contents. Remaining gaps are the unspecified source of article_id and missing error behavior, which are notable but not crippling for a get-by-ID operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it never mentions article_id at all. Only the parameter name and the 64-char hex pattern in the schema communicate meaning; the description doesn't say where the ID comes from (e.g., list_shared_articles) or what format is expected beyond the regex.

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 (读取/read), a specific resource (本机文章库/local article library), and a specific scope (a single article's body text and image list). The '本机' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from network-fetching siblings like fetch_wechat_article, but it does not explicitly separate it from read_wechat_post or list_shared_articles, so differentiation is only partial.

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 'local article library' phrasing implies this is for reading already-saved/imported articles rather than fetching from the network, so usage context is roughly inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternatives, and no exclusion conditions for the close siblings read_wechat_post or query_article_history.

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