wechat_file

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the JSON return structure ({success, data, message, error_code?}) and enumerates the supported actions, which gives further behavioral clarity. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the description complements the safety profile without duplicating it.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, lists the actions, and states the return format. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly compact for the amount of information.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields extensively, and it does provide the top-level JSON shape. However, it does not explain parameter relationships or optionality (e.g., which paths are required for which actions), which an agent would need to call the tool correctly. Given the tool's multi-action nature and optional parameters, this is a noticeable gap, though not critical for a read-only tool.

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 description explains the meaning of the 'action' enum values (project_info, list_pages, read_page, read_file) but does not clarify the roles of 'file_path', 'page_path', or 'project_path', nor the dependencies (e.g., read_page requires page_path). The schema provides descriptions for each field, but the context signal indicates 0% description coverage, meaning the tool description does not substitute for that. The description only partially compensates for the low 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 WeChat mini program project files and structure, and lists four distinct actions (project_info, list_pages, read_page, read_file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_navigate or wechat_screenshot, which have different purposes. The verb '读取' and resource '小程序项目文件' make the purpose explicit and unmistakeable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the available actions imply its scope (reading project files). It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would steer an agent to a sibling tool. Context is clear but there is no comparative guidance, so it remains adequate rather than optimal.

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