wechat_get_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what is returned ('nickname, remark, ID, etc.'), but omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, potential latency, or that it is a read-only operation. It also does not note whether a setup is required (e.g., via wechat_setup_guide), which is a significant gap given sibling tools.

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 two short, direct sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return information. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple list/search tool with one optional parameter, the description is fairly complete. It explicitly mentions the return fields, which is important because there is no output schema. It lacks some guidance on alternatives or behavioral caveats, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the sole 'query' parameter, describing it as an optional keyword filter by nickname or remark. The tool description merely reinforces this ('search by keyword') and adds no extra semantics or usage details. Thus, the description adds no additional value beyond the schema.

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's function: retrieve all contacts or search by keyword, returning nickname, remark, and ID. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contacts'), and the plural 'contacts' distinguishes it from sibling tools like wechat_get_rooms or wechat_get_messages. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from wechat_contact_info, which may provide similar contact 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 mentions two usage modes: get all contacts or search by keyword, implying the optional query parameter. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like wechat_contact_info, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is purely implicit from the action described.

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