Check Connection

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

The description discloses the return state values (open/close/connecting), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). This is consistent with the annotations and provides useful detail about the tool's output format.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and includes the essential scope and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, including possible states. It is self-contained and leaves no ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; the baseline score of 4 applies given the absence of parameters.

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 checks the connection status of a WhatsApp instance, using a specific verb and resource, and even specifies the return state (open/close/connecting). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on messaging, contacts, or group management.

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 usage is implied by the tool's straightforward function, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. It lacks contextual guidance like 'use this before sending messages' or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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