waha_get_contact

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, explain what happens when the contact ID is invalid, or mention any authentication/rate-limit requirements. This leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what action is performed and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, it could slightly improve by noting the return format or error behavior, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for contactId, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('contact info'), and the filter ('by contact ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_get_contact_about (which retrieves 'about' text) and waha_check_number_exists (which checks number existence), 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 contact info by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., waha_get_contact_about). It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer the use case from the tool name and description alone.

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