whatsapp_get_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about default values (e.g., 'after' defaults to 24h ago) and constraints (e.g., 'limit' max 200), which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers key usage aspects and parameter semantics. However, it could benefit from more explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings, and some behavioral details like pagination are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively explains all 5 parameters: chat_jid (with sources), after/before (datetime format and defaults), limit (max constraint), and search_text (optional filtering). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail JID format or ISO 8601 examples.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'messages from a specific WhatsApp chat', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whatsapp_search_messages' or 'whatsapp_unread', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage by specifying 'from a specific WhatsApp chat' and references sibling tools for obtaining the chat_jid, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whatsapp_search_messages'. The context is clear but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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