get_sdk_info

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 correctly implies a read-only, informational operation ('Get detailed information'), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it describe the output format or any limitations. The context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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, with two short sentences that front-load the action and follow with a direct usage directive ('USE THIS'). Every word adds value, 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the tool's function and use case. However, it does not mention the 'cli' platform option or what the response looks like, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning to the 'platform' parameter. It does list the SDK names (Node.js, PHP, Python, Laravel), which map to enum values and clarify the parameter's purpose. However, it omits the 'cli' option and does not explain that the parameter is optional, which leaves a gap for the agent.

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: 'Get detailed information and installation guides for official Wawp SDKs'. It names specific SDKs (Node.js, PHP, Python, Laravel), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_request or generate_starter_code. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'information and installation guides' makes the action explicit.

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 a clear use case: 'USE THIS to help the user integrate WhatsApp into their projects.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusion criteria that would earn a 5.

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