export_wechat_package

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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructiveness, and the description adds real value: the output is a private-content ZIP that must be reviewed before external sending, plus the distinction between explicitly-extracted attachments and merely-listed candidates. It does not contradict the annotations. It stops short of describing output location/format or overwrite behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then parameter nuance, then the privacy warning. No filler; the warning earns its place given the private-content output.

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?

With 14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently: most pagination, time-range, and output-destination parameters are unexplained, and the ZIP's structure/return is undescribed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully disambiguates attachment_paths (files actually extracted) versus auto_link_attachments (candidates only listed), but leaves the other twelve parameters — paging (limit/offset/page_size), time windows (start_time/end_time/after_timestamp/attachment_time_window_seconds), output_dir, attachment_scan_limit, max_chars_per_attachment — completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: exporting a session-evidence ZIP locally on this machine. This is the only export/write tool among siblings dominated by readers, so its identity is distinguishable. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but no sibling overlaps.

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?

No indication of when to reach for this over the many read tools (search_messages, get_recent_messages, list_wechat_attachments) or of prerequisites. It explains parameter behavior for two flags but never states the triggering scenario for choosing export.

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