get_autoreply_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds only the 'current' aspect, indicating a live snapshot rather than a historical or default configuration. No annotation contradiction exists, but the description provides little extra behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately states the tool's purpose and contains no tangential details.

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 tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. There are no input prerequisites to document, and the output schema covers return-value details, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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, so there is no parameter-level ambiguity for the description to resolve. The input schema is fully defined as empty, and no parameter enrichment is necessary, yielding the baseline score of 4.

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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) and a clear resource (公众号当前自动回复配置), making the operation unambiguous. No sibling tool targets auto-reply configuration, so it is easily distinguished from all listed alternatives.

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 implies usage as a read-only lookup of the current auto-reply configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions. The absence of closely related sibling tools softens this gap, but explicit guidance is still lacking.

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