waha_get_group_invite_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation, what format the invite code/link returns in, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely involves group management, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would help an agent understand when and how to use it effectively compared to sibling tools.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured fields, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('invite link/code for a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'waha_revoke_group_invite' or 'waha_get_group', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus others that might also retrieve group information.

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. Given sibling tools like 'waha_get_group' (which might retrieve general group info) and 'waha_revoke_group_invite' (which handles invite management), the agent receives no explicit or implied context about when this specific invite-fetching operation is appropriate.

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