whatsapp_browser_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'without persisting overrides', a key behavioral trait, but fails to disclose whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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, concise but lacking structure. It does not follow a clear verb-object pattern and is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema with no description, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how to use the parameters effectively.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (category, process, browser_mode, login_mode). The description vaguely references browser_mode but ignores the others.

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 it resolves headless/headed policy for an operation without persisting overrides, distinguishing it from sibling 'whatsapp_set_browser_policy' which likely sets policies. However, 'resolve' is ambiguous (determine? retrieve?) and lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whatsapp_set_browser_policy'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, context, or excluded scenarios.

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