conduyt_whatsapp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the GET-based read nature, the three-state status enum including the subtle twilio_required case (sender stored but Twilio disconnected), the returned fields (twilioConnected, sender.phoneNumber in plain E.164, sid), and the settings:view permission requirement. It stops short of stating pagination or side effects, but for a read endpoint it is substantively transparent.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense but front-loaded paragraph: the endpoint and status semantics come first, then the credential dependency, downstream consumers, and permission. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical nesting makes it slightly heavy 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 zero-param, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the distinguishable status values, the returned fields, the credential dependency, and the permission gate. Nothing essential is missing, though an explicit handoff to conduyt_whatsapp_connect on not_configured would complete the picture.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly offers no parameter guidance and instead spends its words on return shape and preconditions, which is the right allocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads the account's WhatsApp connection status via GET /api/v1/settings/whatsapp, and enumerates the possible status values (connected | not_configured | twilio_required). It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like conduyt_whatsapp_senders, conduyt_whatsapp_connect, or conduyt_sms_transports, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 dependency on the account's Twilio credentials and the note that conduyt_send_sms (transport whatsapp) and the workflow Send SMS step can use the connection once established implies when to call this (before attempting WhatsApp sends). However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for related questions such as listing senders or initiating a connection.

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