Read WeChat Article

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions reading and returning data, without revealing side effects such as launching a browser, handling captchas, or waiting for manual verification. Key schema parameters like 'strategy', 'channel', and 'wait_for_manual_verify' imply complex behavior that is left undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and expected result. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 has 9 parameters with rich schema descriptions and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain returns. However, it is minimal and doesn't mention the captcha-wrapper support or browser launch/attach strategies, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios. It is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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%, with every parameter documented (e.g., url, cdp_url, channel, timeout). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the baseline for full coverage.

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 reads a WeChat article URL via a local browser bridge and returns structured data or status. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('WeChat article URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like wechat_open_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 implies usage (when you have a WeChat article URL to read) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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