WhatsApp Session Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the possible status values ('WORKING', 'STOPPED') and the meaning of each return field, which helps agents understand exactly what the tool reveals.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences and a structured list of return values. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains when to use it, and the list clarifies the output. No redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema required), the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, the scenario for use, and details the output fields with expected values. An agent can invoke this tool without any additional clarification.

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 tool has no parameters (input schema is empty), and the description explicitly states 'No parameters required.' According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description correctly confirms this, leaving no ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Check if the WhatsApp session is connected and working.' It specifies the resource (WhatsApp session) and the action (check status), and lists the return values (status, phone, name) which distinguish it from siblings like sending or listing messages.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to verify connectivity before sending messages.' It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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