Get WeChat Page Status

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

The description adds a behavioral nuance ('without requiring a full successful read'), but annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose potential side effects like browser launching, profile usage, or manual verification waits, leaving the agent to infer safety from the 'inspect' wording.

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 that conveys the core purpose and key differentiator without any filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With 10 self-documenting parameters and an output schema, the description need not cover every detail. It clearly states the tool's purpose and key operational nuance. However, it omits guidance on browser strategy, profile selection, or verification behavior, which are relevant given the parameter count.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by connecting 'article URL' and 'current tab' to the url/tab_id parameters, but it does not elaborate on optionality, defaults, or parameter interactions.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('WeChat article URL or the current WeChat tab'), and distinguishes from sibling read tools by noting it works 'without requiring a full successful read'. This clearly separates it from wechat_read_article and wechat_read_current_tab.

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 gives clear context: it is a lightweight status inspection that does not need a full read. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria beyond the implied 'full successful read' contrast, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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