Resolve unknown LID identifiers into active WhatsApp numbers and contact names, checking cached data first and performing live lookups when necessary.
Ubah LID acak jadi nowa + nama kontak (cache dulu, live bila perlu)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lids | Yes | e.g. ["123456789@lid", "62812..."] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: cached resolution first, live lookup only when needed. However, it leaves unclear what happens on cache miss or invalid LID, and it does not describe output shape or failure behavior.
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?
A single, dense sentence renders the core transformation and the cache/live behavior with no filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase contributes.
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 one-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description gives the essential return concept ('nowa + nama kontak') and the resolution strategy. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and response format, but most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 schema already has 100% description coverage for the single 'lids' parameter with min/max constraints and an example, which is the baseline. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond telling the agent these are random LIDs, so no upgrade beyond baseline is warranted.
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 a specific verb ('Ubah'/'resolve'), the resource ('LID acak'), and the result ('nowa + nama kontak'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that send messages or list chats. The parenthetical even adds the resolution strategy, so an agent can tell what this tool alone does.
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 purpose implies when to use it (whenever a random LID must be turned into a phone number/contact name) and the caching note gives operational context, but it never spells out when to use this versus any alternative or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as a fallback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.