waha_get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only weakly implies read-only via 'Return'. It says nothing about whether the session must be started/authenticated, what happens if the session is not logged in, or whether errors are raised versus an empty result — all material for a session-scoped account lookup.

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 with the resource and the payload stated up front and no filler. Nothing to trim.

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, and the tool is simple. But with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum say the session must exist/is authenticated and how the session argument is identified.

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 schema gives the agent only a bare 'session' string. The phrase 'linked to a session' does clarify that the parameter selects which session's account is returned, but it adds no format detail (session name vs. id) or validity constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource (the WhatsApp account linked to a session), and enumerates the returned fields (id, lid, pushName), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, contrast itself with near neighbors like waha_get_session or waha_status, which look similar from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list (id, lid, pushName) signals 'call this when you need the account identity behind a session.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing away from waha_get_session or waha_status, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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