Scan local whitelist directories to list downloaded WeChat files and attachments without triggering new downloads.
列出微信已在本机下载的文件和附件；仅扫描本地白名单目录，不触发微信下载。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| extensions | No | ||
| start_time | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable context that it only scans local whitelist directories and does not trigger downloads. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the exact scope and side-effect-free behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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 with no waste, which is positive. However, it lacks crucial information such as parameter explanations, return format, or any caveats, making it arguably too minimal for a tool with five optional parameters.
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 there is no output schema and five parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains the scanning behavior but omits what the output looks like, how filtering parameters interact, and any performance or limit considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, keyword, end_time, extensions, start_time). The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond parameter names, making it hard to know how to format or use them.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'WeChat downloaded files and attachments', and specifies the scanning scope as local whitelist directories. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_wechat_attachment_text by its listing nature, though it does not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.