whatsapp_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a harmless read and describes the returned entry shape (id such as wa1/wa2, a user label), which is useful, but it does not state read-only semantics, whether accounts must be connected first, or what an empty list means. The text is also visibly truncated.

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 sentence is front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the parenthetical id examples are compact. It is cut off mid-sentence, so full efficiency cannot be confirmed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it covers scope and partial return shape. It stops short of stating prerequisites, what to do when the list is empty, or how the result relates to whatsapp_connect / set_default_whatsapp_account.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline is 4. The mention of ids and labels describes outputs rather than inputs, which is harmless.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('WhatsApp accounts linked to Local MCP on this Mac'), and even begins enumerating the returned fields. It is distinguishable from the many other list_accounts-style siblings because the platform and scope (this Mac) are named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be called before whatsapp_connect, before set_default_whatsapp_account, or as a standalone check.

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