connection_status

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 two output components (connection state, JID) which implies a read-only status operation, but it doesn't mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the tool can be called regardless of connection state. For a simple status getter this is adequate but thin.

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 extremely short and free of filler; every word contributes. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but for a zero-parameter status tool this brevity is effective.

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?

The tool is trivial in complexity: no parameters, no output schema, and the description states the return values. It doesn't cover edge cases or usage restrictions, but for a status read with no inputs the core information is present.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the specific resource (WhatsApp connection state and logged-in JID) and clearly implies a read/status operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ping or auth_qr by specifying exact data returned, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as ping, doctor, or auth_qr. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or alternative.

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