list_whatsapp_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is important safety-relevant behavior, and it discloses the key output fields and the optional name filter. It doesn't cover pagination or exact-match semantics, but those are minor for a simple read-only list operation.

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 compact and well-structured: it says what the tool does, mentions the filter, lists key outputs, and adds the read-only note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation, filter, return fields, and safety profile. It doesn't describe the exact response shape or pagination, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to call it and use the results with the template tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'name' is an optional filter and that the tool returns fields needed for template tools. It could specify whether matching is partial or exact, but the essential parameter behavior is clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('approved WhatsApp message templates'), and an optional filter ('by name'). It also explains what the result provides (namespace, name, lang, params), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like send_whatsapp_template and list_flows.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists approved templates and supplies the fields needed by the template tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this before send_whatsapp_template', but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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