WhatsApp status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It implies a read-only operation but never explicitly states that it makes no changes, requires authentication, or could fail when disconnected. The agent is left uncertain about side effects and operational context.

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?

A single, dense sentence covers all key information without wasted words. The primary concept (connection state) appears first, followed by supporting details. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope of returned data. It lists the categories an agent would care about, though it could mention that the output is a status object or that it reflects local storage. Minor gaps remain, but the tool is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings; the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns, which is the relevant aspect for an agent.

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 specifies what information is returned: connection state, linked number, and local counts of chats/contacts/messages. It distinguishes the tool from sibling actions like send_message or list_chats by describing it as a status/info endpoint, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 its siblings. It does not mention that it is suitable for checking account connectivity before sending messages or that it can be used to see storage counts. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated.

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