Get Group Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default return, the payload overflow concern, and the effect of the parameter. It does not discuss performance, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose, list default fields, and explain the parameter. No redundant information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description could include more details about the response structure, error scenarios, or permission requirements. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the rationale behind the default (avoiding payload overflow) and the 95% use case, going beyond the schema's literal meaning.

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 'Get detailed info for a specific WhatsApp group' and lists the default fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_groups or get_group_resolved_participants.

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 advises using includeParticipants sparingly for large groups and notes that 95% of use cases are covered without it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative siblings for specific tasks.

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