wechat_contact_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the types of information returned (nickname, remark, region, signature) and implies a read-only operation via '获取', but it does not mention error behavior, prerequisites, or response structure beyond example fields. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists sample fields, with no redundant words. It is appropriately minimal and well-structured.

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 a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and expected return fields. However, it could clarify that contactId comes from wechat_get_contacts, but this is a minor gap in an otherwise simple 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 schema already provides a full description for the single parameter (contactId: '联系人的 ID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and clearly identifies the resource as a specified contact's detailed information, listing example fields (nickname, remark, region, signature). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_contacts by focusing on a single contact's details.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single contact's details when a contactId is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools or mention obtaining the contactId from wechat_get_contacts. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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