list_whatsapp_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals important behavioral details such as the sort field warning ('do NOT use created or edited'), automatic resolution of user display names and login names, default values for sort_dir, skip, and take, and the maximum take of 200. It does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, but that is implicit in the list verb and no side effects are described. The disclosure goes beyond the schema and adds valuable operational context.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary followed by a well-organized Args list. Each parameter gets a concise, information-dense line with no filler. The warning about sort fields is relevant and embedded inline. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite high complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, defaults, max limits, and behavioral warnings. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value explanation is acceptable. The description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, leaving no critical 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with examples, formats, and clarifications (e.g., contact is 'NOT a person's name' and requires list_contacts lookup, date_from/date_to specify YYYY-MM-DD, sort lists useful values and warns against invalid ones). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 explicitly states 'List WhatsApp activities with channel-specific fields,' which combines a specific verb (list) with a specific resource (WhatsApp activities) and a distinguishing qualifier (channel-specific fields). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like list_emails or list_web_chats, and the name itself reinforces the WhatsApp channel focus.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by indicating it lists WhatsApp activities with channel-specific fields, implying it is the WhatsApp-specific list variant among siblings. It also gives cross-references to list_queues and list_contacts for resolving parameter values, which guides correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other channels, so it stops short of a 5.

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