mcp-wacli

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. It mentions the default output directory ('wacli media dir'), which adds useful context, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify file formats, error handling (e.g., if media is missing), permissions needed, or whether the operation is read-only or modifies data. For a download tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines efficiently clarify each parameter without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks output details (e.g., what is returned, success/error responses) and behavioral context like error conditions or side effects. This makes it adequate for basic use but insufficient for robust agent operation without additional inference.

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 description must compensate, which it does effectively. It explains all three parameters: 'message_id' and 'chat' are clearly defined with their roles, and 'output' is described with its optional nature and default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples (e.g., format for 'chat JID').

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 ('Download media') and resource ('from a WhatsApp message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'send_file' or 'show_message' by focusing on retrieval rather than sending or displaying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'list_messages' beyond the download action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a message with media), exclusions (e.g., not for text-only messages), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'show_message' for viewing content without downloading. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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