wechat_build_sticker_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the core extraction and the optional file copy operation, which is good. However, it does not state whether the tool modifies chat history or any safety implications, leaving gaps for a critical operation.

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 efficient, with a clear one-liner followed by a structured Args section. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks usage context and any discussion of scale or edge cases, but is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args block. Every parameter gets a clear, concise meaning beyond its name and type, including conditional logic for output_dir.

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 builds a sticker library from chat history, explaining what information is extracted. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wechat_list_stickers or wechat_search_stickers, though the 'from chat history' phrase implies a different source.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. The 'Build sticker library' wording implies a specific use case, but no explicit when/when-not context is given.

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