whatsapp_probe_send_media

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: attaches media, previews, then closes without sending. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It does not mention authentication needs or rate limits, but for a probe tool, the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. However, the structure could be improved with explicit separation of purpose and usage. Portuguese language may hinder some agents.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior. With 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional context.

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%. The description provides no explanation of the 8 parameters, their defaults, or how they affect behavior. This leaves the agent with no additional meaning beyond the bare 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 it attaches media, shows preview, and closes without sending, and is used for Web UI validation. It distinguishes from sending tools like whatsapp_confirm_send_message. However, the Portuguese phrasing may reduce clarity for non-Portuguese agents.

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?

Implied usage for validation of Web UI by type, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned.

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