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 its offline capability and data source. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description doesn't contradict these; instead, it complements them by explaining the caching aspect. It could improve by addressing potential side effects implied by destructiveHint.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the caching/disconnected behavior and the tally inclusion rule. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage context. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what the tally looks like) and doesn't fully address the destructiveHint annotation, which could leave gaps for an agent. With annotations providing some structure, it's sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters (chat_jid and poll_message_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage tips. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific action ('Return the current tally for a cached poll') and resource ('a cached poll'), with explicit scope details ('reads local cache; works while disconnected', 'Zero-vote options are included'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_poll' or 'send_poll_vote' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or interaction.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('reads local cache; works while disconnected'), indicating it's for offline scenarios or cached data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., if real-time results are needed from a different tool), which prevents a perfect score.

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