mcp-wacli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this lists chats 'from local DB', which implies read-only behavior and potential data freshness concerns, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the DB is empty, or if there are rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, and the two parameter lines provide essential usage details. No wasted words or 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks important context. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., chat objects with fields), error conditions, or data source limitations. For a 2-parameter read tool with no structured metadata, this is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' filters chats by name and 'limit' sets a maximum return count with a default of 50. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail query syntax or limit constraints.

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 'list' and resource 'WhatsApp chats from local DB', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_groups (which lists groups) and list_messages (which lists messages), though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 when to use list_chats vs. show_chat (for a single chat) or list_groups (for group chats only), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication status. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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