get_chat

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says metadata is returned. It does not disclose what happens if the JID is unknown, whether the WhatsApp connection must be active, or how include_last_message changes the payload. The default value it mentions is already in the schema.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args section is compact. It is efficiently sized, though the Args lines mostly restate the property names.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the definition covers enough to invoke the tool, but it omits any error or precondition context and does not route the agent away from overlapping sibling tools.

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 Args block does add meaning: chat_jid identifies the target chat and include_last_message toggles inclusion of the most recent message. However, 'JID' is never explained in format terms (e.g. user@server) and what 'last message' includes is left ambiguous, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Get WhatsApp chat metadata by JID.' An agent can tell this retrieves a single chat's metadata rather than listing chats or messages. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_direct_chat_by_contact or list_chats, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_chats, get_direct_chat_by_contact, or get_contact_chats. The only contextual hint is that it needs a JID, which implies you must already know the chat identifier, but this is never stated as a precondition.

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