mcp-wacli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'best-effort' nature, hinting at potential unreliability, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., message format, pagination). For a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly or adding a bit more context without sacrificing brevity.

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 (a tool for retrieving historical data), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses key details like output format, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., device status). This makes it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'chat' is a 'Chat JID to backfill history for', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by detailing format (e.g., JID structure) or constraints, so it scores slightly lower.

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: 'Request older messages for a chat from your primary device (best-effort).' It specifies the verb ('request'), resource ('older messages'), and target ('chat'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_messages' or 'show_message'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_messages' or 'message_context', which could also retrieve messages, 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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for retrieving historical messages from a specific chat, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites (e.g., device connectivity), or alternatives (e.g., using 'list_messages' for recent messages). Without such context, the agent might struggle to choose this tool appropriately among siblings.

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