whatsapp_list_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that data comes 'from the local store,' implying a cached/local snapshot rather than live data, and warns about the need to sync. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, focused sentence with a critical usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what it lists and adds a sync prerequisite. It could mention the return format, but that is less critical for a list operation.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Per the rubric, a 4 is the baseline for 0 params.

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 'Lists the WhatsApp groups this account is in,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like whatsapp_list_chats by explicitly focusing on groups rather than all chats.

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 includes a clear prerequisite: 'run whatsapp_sync first if a just-crea...' This tells the user when additional setup is needed. However, it does not mention alternatives like whatsapp_group_info or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, so it loses a point.

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