extract_wechat_attachment_text

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

No annotation contradiction: annotations say readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with 'extract' being a read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating supported formats (ZIP text items, OCR, ASR, keyframe OCR, timestamp evidence), which is beyond the generic annotations. However, it does not disclose details like output format, limits, or failure modes, so the description only partially carries the burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('extract downloaded WeChat file text or media evidence'), followed by a compact enumeration of supported types. Every part adds value, though the second sentence could be more structurally organized; overall it's efficient.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (multiple file types, OCR/ASR), and the description lists supported types, but it lacks details on output schema (no output schema given), parameter semantics (especially max_chars), and any required preconditions (e.g., file must exist). For a complex extraction tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. The description conveys that the tool processes a downloaded file path, which aligns with 'source_path', but it does not explain what 'max_chars' controls or how to specify it, leaving the parameter semantics partly inferred from the name alone.

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 states a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('wechat attachment text'), and lists the supported file types, which conveys the core function. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like 'search_wechat_attachment_text' (which searches rather than extracts), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'read_wechat_image' or 'search_wechat_attachment_text'. It implies extraction from downloaded files but gives no conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the file-type list.

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