search_wechat_attachment_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific reassurance that the scan does not modify WeChat files or the database, which gives concrete behavioral context beyond the generic annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the safety guarantee second. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin. It explains what the tool searches but not the optional filtering parameters, result shape, or any usage details an agent would need beyond the required keyword.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the keyword concept, while limit, scan_limit, extensions, start_time, and end_time remain semantically undefined, including timestamp units and the distinction between limit and scan_limit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'search keyword in the content of WeChat's downloaded local files.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages or extract_wechat_attachment_text, since it targets full-text search over local attachment content.

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 gives clear context for use: search keyword text inside locally downloaded WeChat files. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is direct and unambiguous enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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