Decrypt and extract wxapkg

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load itself. It discloses two useful behaviors that annotations could not: that an appid triggers automatic lookup of the latest cached package, and that the result is a list of unpacked files. It does not say whether files are written to disk, where they land, or whether existing output is overwritten — a notable gap for a decrypt/extract 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by input modes and then the output. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition adequately covers inputs and names the return value (a file list). However, with no annotations to lean on, it leaves the agent guessing about side effects — disk writes, output location, and overwrite behavior — which matter for a decrypt-and-extract 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already defines it as 'appid 或 wxapkg 文件路径'. The description adds real meaning beyond that by explaining that the appid path auto-resolves to the most recent cached package, which the schema does not state.

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 definition names a specific pair of verbs and a concrete resource: '解密并提取 wxapkg 包' (decrypt and extract a wxapkg package). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mp_analyze or mp_analyze_all, which do not mention decryption or unpacking. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with mp_sign_crack or mp_analyze.

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 definition tells the agent the two acceptable input modes — pass an appid to auto-locate the newest cache, or pass a direct wxapkg file path — which is genuine usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer this tool over mp_analyze or mp_sign_crack, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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