Receive WeChat messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: long-poll mechanism, deduplication via sync cursor, default media download/decrypt to temp files, and the accountId condition. No contradictions with annotations (none 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core action, each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavior details, and account condition. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers key behavioral aspects, the absence of an output schema means the description should elaborate on response structure beyond MediaPath. It mentions the sync cursor and dedup but omits other return fields like message content, sender, etc., leaving some incompleteness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond schema: ties accountId to multi-account scenario, explains timeoutMs as long-poll holding time, and clarifies downloadMedia default. However, the schema descriptions are already informative, so the added value is moderate.

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 starts with 'Poll for new inbound WeChat messages (one long-poll cycle)', which clearly states the verb (poll) and resource (inbound WeChat messages). It differs from siblings like wechat_send and wechat_listen, establishing a unique purpose.

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 context: it's a long-poll, deduplicates via sync cursor, and requires accountId only with multiple accounts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with wechat_listen, missing explicit alternatives.

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