mcp-wacli

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Send') but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, rate limits, authentication requirements, file size limits, or whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 context, and each parameter line provides necessary semantic information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

For a file-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks important context about behavioral aspects (success criteria, error handling, limitations). It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in operational transparency.

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 provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains 'to' as recipient phone/JID, 'file_path' as server path, 'caption' as optional text, 'filename' as display name with default behavior, and 'mime' as type override. This compensates well 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 specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a file via WhatsApp'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_message' by specifying file types (image, video, audio, document). It provides immediate clarity about what the tool does.

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 'send_message' (for text) or 'download_media' (for receiving files). It mentions WhatsApp context but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate scenarios for file versus message sending.

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