Disconnect from WeChat Developer Tools and clear context state to end an automated testing session.
断开与微信开发者工具的连接并清理上下文状态
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| nextActions | Yes | ||
| observation | Yes | ||
| partialData | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the disconnect and context cleanup but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or whether an active connection is required. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool with zero annotation support.
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 repetition or filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, output schema present), so the description's core statement of disconnecting and cleaning up context is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks context about preconditions (e.g., must be connected) and possible error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding when to call 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics; the schema already confirms an empty parameter set.
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 is a specific verb+resource+effect: it disconnects from WeChat Developer Tools and cleans up context state. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_devtools and reconnect_devtools by naming the exact action and resource.
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 only states what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions such as 'use reconnect_devtools to restore'. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.