mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that it 'reads local cache' and 'works while disconnected', which clarifies the tool's offline capability and data source. Annotations already indicate it's destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), but the description doesn't contradict these. The description could better explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., cache modification).

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 extremely concise (one sentence with a parenthetical note) and front-loaded with the key functionality. Every element adds value: the parenthetical clarifies operational constraints, and the main clause states the core purpose without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, low schema coverage (33%), no output schema, and annotations indicating destructive/non-idempotent behavior, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the offline/cache aspect well but lacks details on parameter usage, return values, and the implications of 'destructive' behavior. Given the complexity, more guidance would be helpful.

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 low (33%), with only 'message_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't explicitly mention any parameters, though it implies 'message_id' through 'specific WhatsApp message'. It doesn't explain 'before' and 'after' parameters, which are undocumented in the schema. Baseline is 3 due to partial compensation for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get context around a specific WhatsApp message') and resource ('WhatsApp message'), with the parenthetical note about local cache and disconnected operation adding useful specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chat' or 'list_messages' which might also retrieve message-related data.

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 implies usage context through the parenthetical note about local cache and disconnected operation, suggesting this tool is for offline scenarios. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_chat' or 'list_messages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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