whatsapp_probe_reply_to_message

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

The description discloses the core behavior: entering reply mode and canceling without sending. However, without annotations, it does not detail potential side effects, error handling, or output. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be informative; conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 8 parameters and no output schema shown in the definition, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how parameters affect behavior or what the probe returns.

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 description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., recipient_name, reply_to, browser_mode). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to the input schema.

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 enters the native reply mode of WhatsApp Web and cancels without sending. It identifies a specific verb ('enter') and resource ('reply mode'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like whatsapp_probe_send_media.

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 such as whatsapp_prepare_send_message or whatsapp_confirm_send_message. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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