wa_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is a dry-run, non-destructive, and returns a verdict and confirm_token. It lacks details on side effects or idempotency, but overall provides sufficient transparency for its safe nature.

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 concise with only two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the key purpose and usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and usage context. It could mention authentication or idempotency, but it is largely complete for its scope.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. It implicitly references 'recipient' but does not clarify the roles of 'message' and 'file_path', nor their constraints like mutual exclusivity or optionality. This is a significant gap.

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 it is a dry-run for sending, performing security checks and reporting what would happen without actual sending. It specifically contrasts with the send tool, distinguishing its purpose well from siblings like wa_send_message.

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?

Explicitly advises "Use this before any send you are unsure about," which provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives besides the send tool.

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