read_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'recent' and 'untrusted user content' but omits behavioral details like whether it is read-only (implied), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. Minimal value beyond the basic read 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?

Two sentences, no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a security note. Perfectly concise for the minimal information provided.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage in the schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively. It does not describe return format, error cases, or parameter semantics, leaving significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, chatId, fromMe). For a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add meaning—the agent has no idea what fromMe does or how limit behaves.

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 'read' and the resource 'recent messages from one WhatsApp chat by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools: list_chats lists chats, whatsapp_status deals with status, so purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or when not to use it. The only addition is a security note about untrusted content, which is not usage guidance.

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