whatsapp_read_messages

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, message ordering, or return volume. The simple phrase 'Read messages' provides no insight into side effects or limitations.

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?

At one sentence, the description is brief but underspecified. It does not earn its place by providing necessary details; under-specification is not 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with details about scope, input selection, and output format. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough information for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description fails to explain how the tool determines which chat to read (e.g., from context or a previous chat selection). This omission reduces score.

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 'Read messages from a WhatsApp chat' with a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about which chat is read (e.g., all chats, a specific chat) and does not distinguish from siblings like 'whatsapp_search_messages', which also involves reading messages but with filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'whatsapp_list_chats' or 'whatsapp_search_messages'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate selection.

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