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. While it mentions the search functionality, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool 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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations in a simple format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output information that would be helpful for an AI agent. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'query' as the search term and 'limit' with its default value of 50. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like 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 tool's purpose: 'Search WhatsApp contacts by name or phone number.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (WhatsApp contacts), and scope (by name or phone number). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_contact' or 'refresh_contacts', 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 like 'show_contact' (for specific contacts) or 'refresh_contacts' (for updating contact lists). It only describes what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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