List Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope (groups of the connected number) but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or potential incompleteness. openWorldHint=true does not seem contradicted, but no extra value is added beyond the annotation.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the exact scope of results, and no output schema exists so return values are not required. It covers all necessary context without gaps.

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 input schema has only one boolean parameter (get_participants) with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any further meaning about parameter usage or effect, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all WhatsApp groups the connected number participates in'), which is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like find_group or group_participants by emphasizing enumeration of all groups.

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 use when you need to enumerate all groups the connected number is in, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as find_group for searching or group_participants for a specific group. No when-not guidance is provided.

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