wacta_studio_numbers

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 disclosure. It states the content but not the behavior—no mention of whether it is read-only, whether it returns all items or only active ones, or any pagination or side effects. The word 'Catálogo' implies a safe read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the resource and its key fields. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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, no-parameter catalog tool, the description provides the core field names, which helps an agent anticipate the response. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list, nor does it give any context about filtering or scope. Without an output schema, the description should be more explicit about return behavior, making it adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is trivially 100% and there is no input to describe. The description's mention of fields (slug, etiqueta, activo, reparto) gives useful hints about the expected output, even though it does not directly explain parameters. Baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a catalog of WhatsApp numbers for CTA Studio and lists key fields (slug, etiqueta, activo, reparto). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wacta_list_ctas by focusing on numbers rather than CTAs. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns' or 'lists'), relying on the noun 'Catálogo' to imply the action.

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 such as wacta_status or wacta_list_ctas. There is no mention of filters, context, or scenarios where this catalog would be preferred. This is a clear gap in usability guidance.

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