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. It mentions 'recent' messages but doesn't define what 'recent' means (e.g., time window). It also lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no filters are applied. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation support.

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 structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling). Without annotations or output schema, more detail on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining all four parameters in the 'Args' section. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying date formats (YYYY-MM-DD or RFC3339) and default values (limit default is 50). However, it doesn't clarify what 'chat JID' is or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'List recent WhatsApp messages with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('WhatsApp messages'), and scope ('recent'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'show_message', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_messages' (which might offer different filtering capabilities) or 'show_message' (for single messages), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage.

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