wechat_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: auto-detection of file type. However, it omits any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., login status), or error handling, leaving room for improvement.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. It directly states the action and an important nuance (auto-detection).

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 simple send operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information about return values, errors, or prerequisites, though the sibling tools (e.g., login/status) provide some surrounding context.

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 provides no parameter-level details. The parameter names (userId, caption, filePath) are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify expected formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 tool sends an arbitrary local file, with auto-detection of file type. This distinguishes it from siblings like wechat_send_image and wechat_send_text by emphasizing 'arbitrary' and the full range of file types.

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 phrase 'arbitrary local file' implies a general-purpose sending tool, contrasting with specialized siblings like send_image. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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