wechat_build

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true but no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description states it returns a JSON structure, which adds behavioral context, and mentions that 'upload' requires 'version' (parameter semantics). However, the description does not disclose side effects, such as whether upload publishes to production, whether cache_clean is destructive, or authentication requirements. The idempotentHint is somewhat contradicted by non-idempotent actions like upload, though the description does not explicitly contradict the annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and action list, and ends with the return format. No wasted words; fits within a few lines.

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?

For a tool with a rich action enum and many parameters, the description covers the main actions and the return structure, but does not elaborate on prerequisites, side effects, or error handling. With 11 parameters and 5 actions, the description leaves about half the behavioral context to the schema and annotations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are quite detailed (e.g., role of cdp_port, clean_type, version for upload). The tool description adds the grouping of actions and the JSON return shape, but most parameter explanations come from the schema itself, not the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action is a build/preview/upload tool for WeChat mini-programs and lists the specific actions it supports. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering build-related operations, though it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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 contexts (build operations, npm management) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks alternatives or exclusions, though the action enum provides some guidance on what each action does.

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