wechat_send_typing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is one-shot ('once') and not auto-stopping, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling or effects of repeated calls, though this is minor for a simple typing indicator.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word serves a purpose. It includes the action, the one-shot nature, and the pairing instruction without any redundancy.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description covers the core behavior, the one-shot limitation, and the required pairing with stop_typing. It lacks details about return values or error conditions, but for a tool of this scale, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 for the only parameter (userId), and the description does not mention it at all. While the parameter name is somewhat intuitive, the description adds no semantic value or clarification about whose ID it is or any constraints.

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's function: showing a typing indicator ('正在输入中…') once. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like wechat_send_text and wechat_stop_typing, and the pairing note further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly warns that the typing indicator does not auto-stop and instructs pairing with wechat_stop_typing. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the complementary alternative, going beyond simple context.

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