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 'update local DB', implying a write operation, but doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, the nature of the update (e.g., overwrite, merge), or potential side effects like rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that performs both fetch and update actions.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and action, and another detailing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function, but could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter info. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 of fetching from WhatsApp and updating a DB, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what group info is fetched), error handling, or the update process's impact. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'jid' parameter as 'Group JID' with an example format ('120363001234567890@g.us'), clarifying its meaning and usage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't cover all possible semantic nuances.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('live group info from WhatsApp'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'list_groups' or 'show_chat' by focusing on detailed information for a specific group. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'show_chat' which might also retrieve group details, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'list_groups' (for listing groups) or 'show_chat' (which might show chat info including groups). It mentions updating a local DB, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or when not to use it, leaving usage context unclear.

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