mock_wx_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior of overriding a wx method and returning a fixed result, which implies mutation. However, it lacks details on reversibility, scope, or side effects, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does and why, and the schema documents the parameters. It could mention restoration or state persistence, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 100%, with both 'method' and 'result' documented. The tool description essentially restates what the schema already provides, adding no extra meaning or syntax details beyond 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 verb '覆盖' (override), the resource 'wx 方法' (wx method), and the outcome '返回固定结果' (return fixed result). It also mentions the purpose '用于模拟第三方依赖' (to simulate third-party dependencies), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_wx_method and restore_wx_method.

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 clear context by indicating this tool is for simulating third-party dependencies, implying it should be used when mocking is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer call_wx_method or restore_wx_method.

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