whatsapp_browser_open

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

With no annotations, the description discloses headless/headed mode and return of screenshot/QR. However, it omits side effects, session management, and destructive potential (e.g., force_restart). Some behavior is implied but 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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the main action. However, it lacks structure to accommodate parameter details or additional context.

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 the complexity of 8 unannotated parameters and existence of an output schema, the description only covers high-level opening and output. It does not explain how parameters shape behavior or how the tool fits into the broader WhatsApp browser workflow.

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?

Parameter coverage in schema is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The agent must infer from names alone (e.g., capture_qr, force_restart). The mention of 'QR' loosely maps to capture_qr but is insufficient.

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 the tool opens WhatsApp Web via Playwright in headless/headed mode and returns screenshot/QR. It identifies the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like whatsapp_browser_set_policy or other browser tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing prerequisites, context, or exclusions despite 8 parameters and sibling tools that imply a workflow.

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