mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description doesn't explain what destructive behavior entails (e.g., data deletion or side effects). It adds value by specifying the JSON output format, but fails to address the contradiction between 'Return' (implying read-only) and destructive annotations, though not explicitly conflicting.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Return the user's current WhatsApp privacy settings') and adds necessary detail ('as JSON') 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive hint with no clear reason) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the destructive behavior, return structure, or error conditions, leaving gaps for the agent to handle.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given no parameters exist, earning a baseline score for not needing compensation.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('user's current WhatsApp privacy settings'), specifying the output format ('as JSON'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_privacy_setting' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with other tools like 'get_blocklist' or 'get_chat', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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