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 the tool shows details but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., sender, timestamp, content, metadata), whether it requires authentication, if it's read-only or has side effects, or how errors are handled (e.g., for invalid IDs). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, with the purpose stated first followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but it could benefit from slightly richer context without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return values, error conditions, or authentication needs, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The minimal parameter info and absence of usage guidelines further reduce 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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'message_id' identifies the message and 'chat' specifies the chat JID where the message is located, but doesn't explain format (e.g., string patterns), examples, or constraints. With low schema coverage, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 'Show details of a single message,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_messages' (which lists multiple messages) and 'message_context' (which provides context around a message). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'show_chat' or 'show_contact,' which might also display message details indirectly.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid message ID and chat JID), compare it to siblings like 'list_messages' for browsing or 'message_context' for surrounding messages, or specify use cases (e.g., for detailed inspection vs. quick lookup). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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