list_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no additional context about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise but too minimalistic. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details about parameters and usage, which is acceptable for a simple tool but not exemplary.

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 number of parameters (including booleans for media handling) and lack of output schema, the description should explain returned data format, ordering, pagination, or behavioral details. It does not, leaving gaps for effective tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage. It does not clarify parameter relationships or usage nuances.

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 'Get WhatsApp messages from a specific chat', identifying the verb (Get), resource (WhatsApp messages), and scope (specific chat). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages, which likely operate across chats.

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 search_messages, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. It relies solely on the tool's name and minimal description.

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