whatsapp_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a status getter and lists the specific return fields, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. This is sufficient for a status check, though it does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or connection resets, which would justify a higher score.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and the resource ('WhatsApp connection status'), followed by specific details. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the essential information needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics, as there are none. It adds value by clarifying what the output contains, which is more relevant for a no-parameter status tool.

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 'Get the WhatsApp connection status' and specifies the exact pieces of information it retrieves (connected, pairing, bot JID, buffered messages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatsapp_send or whatsapp_list_chats, which handle different resources.

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 context that this tool is for checking connection status, and the sibling tool names make it obvious when to use it versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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