绑定新消息ClawBot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, user restriction, binding consequence, and unified response format. It does not cover repeated-binding behavior or side effects, but key behavioral information is present.

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 compact and well-structured: endpoint, parameter, prerequisites, support scope, postcondition, and response format. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter binding operation with no output schema, the description covers the request shape, prerequisites, restrictions, success consequence, and response envelope. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents apiKey with 100% coverage including the required prefix constraint. The description adds the source of the API Key and emphasizes that it is required, providing marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'POST /open/cmcc/bind - 绑定新消息ClawBot', stating a specific action (bind) and a specific resource (China Mobile new-message ClawBot). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like open_cmcc_unbind, open_cmcc_test, and open_cmcc_info.

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 prerequisites (obtain API Key from the 5G message app), a support restriction (China Mobile users only), and postconditions (can use /send with channel=cmcc). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the usage context is well defined.

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