whatsapp-wyjbao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing cost but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might be invoked without prior knowledge of its safety profile.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, includes essential billing info, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description does indicate the resource type. However, it omits any explanation of the response format or behavioral expectations, and the lack of annotation means the agent has minimal context. It is adequate but not complete enough for a fully informed invocation.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter 'body' with a description and example, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the schema is sufficient for a single nested JSON object.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get About (status text)' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tools (getProfilePicUrl, getUserInfo) by explicitly targeting the 'About' text of a contact.

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 (when you need the About/status text) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no 'instead use X' pattern.

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

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

The description states 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which provides a cost-related behavior, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what happens on success or failure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only mentions billing and omits return format and error handling.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), front-loaded with the purpose. The inclusion of billing information is useful but could be moved to a separate field if it were not for the description being the only place for it. There is no redundancy, and the structure is clear, though it sacrifices explanatory detail for brevity.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description should compensate for these gaps. It does not explain what the returned URL looks like, whether it returns a string or an object, or how to handle missing contactId. The tool is simple but the description is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively without additional assumptions.

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 schema description for the single parameter 'body' is fully covered (100%) with an example showing the contactId. The description itself adds no extra semantic value to the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter, but the description does not supplement it with any additional context.

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 names the operation clearly as 'Get Profile Picture URL', which is specific about the action and resource. However, it does not specify the entity type (e.g., contact, user) beyond the example in the schema, and the sibling tools (post_getAbout, post_getUserInfo) suggest a broader context that is not addressed. The purpose is understandable but lacks scoping details that would fully differentiate it.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (post_getAbout, post_getUserInfo). There are no preconditions, no mention of required parameters (the schema has zero required fields despite the example), and no explanation of how this tool fits into a workflow. It is essentially a bare operation with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a useful operational hint. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens when a contact is not found. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the billing note.

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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats the title 'Get User Info/Details'. The billing sentence adds obscure technical wording 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' It could be more packed with meaningful details, but it's not verbose.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. It's a simple tool but the description fails to explain what information is returned or how to interpret the response. The example parameter helps slightly, but overall the agent likely lacks clarity on what 'User Info' means and when to use it.

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%, with the single parameter 'body' having an example. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, but the schema's example provides the required format. Since coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add extra semantic value.

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 says 'Get User Info/Details' which is only slightly more specific than the tool name and title. It doesn't state what specific user information is retrieved (e.g., name, presence, etc.), nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like post_getAbout or post_getProfilePicUrl.

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. Sibling tools exist (getAbout, getProfilePicUrl) but no cross-referencing or when-to-use guidance is given. The billing note mentions 1 credit per call, which is a cost hint but not usage guidance.

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