whatsapp_send_image

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful context about file requirements (absolute path, valid image types) but does not mention what happens on invalid input, whether the operation is blocking, or any side effects beyond 'sending' an image. This is a basic disclosure, not a rich one.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a necessary precondition. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or filler.

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, the description covers the main purpose, the key prerequisite, and all parameters are well-documented in the schema. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but that is not critical for this straightforward send action. A brief note on when to use this versus whatsapp_send would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates 'local absolute file path' and lists valid image formats (jpg, png, gif, webp). This is a slight enhancement but does not fundamentally improve parameter understanding.

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 specific action: sending an image from a local absolute file path. The verb 'send' and resource 'image' are specific, and the source path is explicitly mentioned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whatsapp_send (likely for text) and whatsapp_status (status updates).

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 clearly implies the use case is sending images, and it provides a prerequisite (file must exist and be valid). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like whatsapp_send for text messages, which would warrant a 5.

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