whatsapp_diagnose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what the tool checks (account linked, live connection) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or what side effects (if any) it has. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It uses minimal words and includes relevant details, though ending with '...' hints at unlisted checks, it remains efficiently structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains what the tool returns (account number, connection status) but leaves the list open-ended with '...'. For a simple diagnostic tool with no params, this is adequate but not fully complete regarding return format.

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 the input schema is fully covered (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4; no additional parameter explanation is needed since there are none.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a WhatsApp health check ('WhatsApp health check (wacli doctor)') and specifies key checks (linked account number, live connection status). This distinguishes it from siblings like whatsapp_connect or whatsapp_send_message, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage context ('health check') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions. The agent can infer it is for diagnostics, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over other WhatsApp tools.

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