yan_diagnose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds helpful context that it checks configuration, connectivity, and parser availability, and that it does not require WeChat to be running, but it does not explain outputs, error cases, or effects beyond inspection.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the diagnostic scope and then adds the key operational condition. Every part contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, the description is sufficiently complete to invoke it: it names what is checked and notes that it runs without WeChat open. It could mention what the result looks like, but no output schema exists and the complexity is low, so this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters in the schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; no parameter information is missing.

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 states a specific diagnostic action ('检查' / check) against concrete resources: Yan's configuration, WxLens connection, and optional parsers. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that read messages or articles, since it is the only diagnostic tool.

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 gives one useful usage condition—it can run even when WeChat is not open, implying it works as a preflight diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what circumstances should trigger its use.

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