waha_start_typing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'simulates real user behavior' without detailing duration, visual effects, permissions needed, or side effects. It misses key behavioral traits like whether it's persistent, requires specific chat states, or has rate limits.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Show typing indicator in a chat') and adds clarifying context ('simulates real user behavior') without any wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves UI simulation and chat interactions. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what 'simulates' entails, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's documentation of 'chatId' and 'session', which already define their purposes clearly.

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 ('Show typing indicator') and target ('in a chat'), with the specific behavior 'simulates real user behavior' adding useful context. It distinguishes from sibling 'waha_stop_typing' by indicating the start action, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'waha_send_text' or 'waha_stop_typing' is provided. The description implies usage for simulating user behavior but lacks context on timing, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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