waha_get_chat_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order (newest first) and read-only intent, but says nothing about pagination semantics, session requirements, or that download_media triggers media fetching — a side effect an agent should know before setting it.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler — the core operation comes first and the dependency second. Brevity is appropriate, though it edges toward under-specification given the schema gap.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin: an agent cannot infer what session means, how limit/offset paging behaves, or the cost of download_media.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only chat_id's provenance is addressed; session, limit, offset, and download_media are left entirely undocumented, including their defaults and interaction.

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?

"Read messages from a chat" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the ordering note ("newest first") scopes the result set. It implicitly separates from waha_list_chats and the send_* tools, but never names an adjacent read sibling like waha_get_chat to draw the line explicitly.

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?

"Use the id from waha_list_chats" is a real prerequisite that tells the agent where chat_id comes from. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over waha_get_chat, and no exclusions or paging guidance for repeated calls.

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