wechat_get_article_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the tool works for all WeChat articles, what happens if the URL is invalid or behind a paywall, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 concise: two sentences that get to the point. It could be slightly improved by removing the vague '优质库' qualifier or explaining it.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description should cover what the tool returns or any prerequisites. It does not mention output format or any limitations, leaving gaps for a single-parameter tool.

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?

There is only one parameter (url), and the description adds context by specifying the expected URL format and that it is for a WeChat article. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable, but the description could further clarify what kind of URLs are supported (e.g., only mp.weixin.qq.com).

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 tool retrieves details of a WeChat public account article, including full content, given a URL. The URL format is exemplified. However, '优质库' is a bit vague and could be more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wechat_get_work or wechat_search_articles. The context of '优质库' suggests a curated subset, but this is not explicitly communicated as a usage condition.

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