wa_msg_retrieve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action 'Retrieve a message'. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 'Retrieve a message' is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., messaging and business operations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about what a 'message' entails, how retrieval works, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets the requirement for a tool with no parameters.

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 'Retrieve a message' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'wa_msg_retrieve' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of message (e.g., WhatsApp message), from which context, or how retrieval works, leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.

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 like 'wa_msg_send' or 'wa_business_retrieve'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a message ID or specific permissions, and doesn't mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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