wechat_get_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'get metadata' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose idempotency, potential side effects, required permissions, or data freshness. The 'high-quality library' hint is ambiguous.

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 wasted words. It is concise, though it could include more contextual information without losing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation. It does not explain what the output schema contains, error behavior, or the meaning of 'high-quality library'. The agent is left to infer the return format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter `work_uuid` has no schema-level description. The tool description merely repeats 'work UUID' without adding format, source, validation, or examples. It fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 WeChat public account article metadata by work UUID, and adds 'high-quality library' context. While the verb and resource are specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wechat_get_article_detail.

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 such as wechat_get_article_detail or wechat_search_articles. The description omits prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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