waha_get_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default limit and return fields, which adds useful context, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). It adequately describes core behavior but lacks comprehensive operational details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and default limit, all in two efficient sentences. Every element earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, output fields, and a key behavioral detail (default limit), but lacks information on error handling, pagination beyond offset, or how 'recent' is defined. For a read operation with good schema coverage, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds value by mentioning the default limit (10 chats), which complements the schema's default value, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. Since parameters are well-covered, a baseline score above 3 is justified due to the added default clarification.

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 specific action ('Get overview of recent WhatsApp chats') and resource ('WhatsApp chats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waha_get_contact or waha_get_messages. It specifies the scope ('recent') and output format ('chat ID, name, last message preview, and unread count'), making the purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving chat overviews but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like waha_get_groups or waha_get_all_contacts. It mentions a default limit but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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