wechat_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields, implying a read-only status check, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or what side effects might exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 extremely concise, using a compact list format with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning, and the front-loaded structure immediately communicates the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller picture of what the tool returns. It lists three fields but gives no details about their format, possible values, or structure. 'Receive-queue depth' in particular is ambiguous without elaboration. The description is too sparse for a tool that lacks any other structured context.

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 schema provides no parameter information. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 lists three concrete data items (connection state, account info, receive-queue depth) that clearly differentiate this from sibling tools like wechat_login or wechat_send_text. However, it lacks an explicit verb or sentence structure, making it slightly less direct than an ideal 'Get current status' phrasing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases such as checking connection before sending messages or monitoring queue depth. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name and the listed output fields.

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