get_contact_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reads from cached chat metadata with no network call, implying data freshness may lag reality — useful for an agent deciding whether to trust the result.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus a compact example; the scoping constraint and the no-network caveat both appear before the example. 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?

Single fully-documented parameter, no output schema needed, and annotations carry the safety profile. The cache/no-network note covers the main residual concern; only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of a 5.

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% and the schema already documents the @c.us JID format requirement. The example call reinforces the format but adds no meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (WhatsApp groups) scoped to a single contact, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_groups. However, it never names the sibling it contrasts with, so the agent must infer that distinction.

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 the use case (find groups a given contact is in) and gives an example call, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like list_groups or get_group. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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