get_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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it's a lightweight check or resource-intensive, if it requires authentication, what happens on failure, or what the return format looks like. This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with an external service.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of checking a client connection status (which may involve network calls, authentication, or error handling), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a status string, boolean, or structured data) or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there's no parameter documentation needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is applied since the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Check WhatsApp client connection status' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('WhatsApp client connection status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_chats' or 'get_messages' which might also involve connection status indirectly, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the client must be initialized), when it's appropriate (e.g., before sending messages), or what to do if the status is disconnected. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about optimal usage scenarios.

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