whatsapp_diagnose

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the checks performed and implies a read-only health inspection, but it does not explicitly state whether any state is changed, whether it contacts the network, or how errors and malformed outputs are handled.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and immediately followed by useful details. It is compact, though the trailing 'message...' reads as incomplete or cut off, slightly weakening the structure.

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 no-argument diagnostic, the core purpose and output areas are covered, but with no annotations or output schema, more context would help: prerequisites such as an active WhatsApp connection, return format, and whether the command is safe/non-destructive are missing.

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 has zero parameters, so no parameter clarification is needed. The description focuses on what the diagnostic reports rather than input semantics, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 states a specific action ('health check') and resource ('WhatsApp'), and lists concrete outputs such as linked account, last sync time, and store lock. It is clearly distinct from other whatsapp_* tools by focusing on diagnosis rather than messaging or connection setup, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given about when to run this diagnostic versus related tools like whatsapp_sync, whatsapp_connect, or run_diagnostics. The phrasing implies troubleshooting use, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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