get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return...') but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. While it implies no side effects, more detail would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Return current WhatsApp connection status') and follows with specific examples. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or waste.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists the types of information returned. It could mention that it is a quick, non-destructive operation, but the current text is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides 100% coverage. According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 returns the WhatsApp connection status and lists specific fields (connected, retention, transcription, etc.). The verb 'Return' and resource 'WhatsApp connection status' are unambiguous. Among siblings like get_brief or get_image, this is uniquely about connection status, making it easy to distinguish.

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 connection status is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternatives. For a simple status check with zero parameters, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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