list_groups

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List WhatsApp groups only' and does not explain authentication needs, output format, pagination, or whether any connection/auth state is required.

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 concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds information, especially 'only', which clarifies scope.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated. It covers the basic resource and action but omits operational context such as prerequisites, return behavior, and how the limit parameter affects results.

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 schema has no description for the 'limit' parameter, and the description adds nothing about it. The agent must rely on the parameter name and schema constraints to infer that limit controls the number of groups returned.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('WhatsApp groups'), and the word 'only' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chats and list_newsletters. An agent can immediately understand what this tool is for.

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 word 'only' implies this tool should be used when groups are the target rather than chats or newsletters, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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