whatsapp_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies the exact status values returned ('connected', 'qr_pending', etc.) and explains that if a QR code is needed, it returns a data URL for browser scanning. This provides practical behavioral details not covered by annotations.

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 efficiently structured in three short paragraphs: first states the purpose, second details the return values, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations present, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that, making this well-rounded for the 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's output and usage context, which adds semantic value without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('WhatsApp connection status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle messaging, chats, contacts, etc. It explicitly defines what it does rather than just restating the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before sending messages to ensure WhatsApp is connected.' This directly contrasts with sibling tools like 'whatsapp_send' and gives a clear prerequisite context for usage.

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