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 data source ('local DB') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 highly concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, error handling) and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool interacting with a local database in a multi-tool environment.

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' is an 'Optional search string to filter groups' and 'limit' sets 'Max results (default 50)', clarifying their purposes and default values, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('WhatsApp groups from local DB'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_chats' or 'show_chat', which might also retrieve chat-related data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 sibling tools like 'list_chats' or 'show_chat', nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication status or data availability in the local DB, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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