wechat_send_file

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 mentions the need for an absolute local file path, but does not disclose potential failure modes, size limits, whether the operation blocks, or any authentication requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation-style 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 a single concise sentence (24 characters in Chinese) that front-loads the core action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous content.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the essential information: what it does and what is needed. It may lack deeper behavioral context, but for this level of complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('contact' and 'filePath'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds the context that the file can be an image and reinforces the absolute-path requirement, but does not materially increase understanding 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 purpose: sending files or images to contacts or group chats. It uses a specific verb ('send') and specifies the resource (contacts/group chats), definitively distinguishing it from sibling tool 'wechat_send_text' which handles text messages.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for file/image sending, implying that text messages should go through 'wechat_send_text'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative, falling short of a 5.

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