conduyt_whatsapp_templates

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 that it reads Twilio live, requires automations:view, and explains that `connected` means both Twilio credentials and a WhatsApp sender are present. It omits anything about pagination, caching, or failure modes when Twilio is unreachable.

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 valuable information (resource, field meanings, approval states, connected flag) comes first, with usage constraints after. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the explicit enumeration of returned fields and approval values is necessary and well done. Permissions and behavioral traits are covered; only pagination/error behavior is missing, which is minor for a no-param read tool.

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?

Zero input parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does add value by explaining how the returned sid maps to a send_sms step's whatsappTemplateSid / conduyt_send_sms whatsappContentSid, tying the output into the send workflow.

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 resource and retrieval action: the account's WhatsApp templates with Meta approval verdict, plus the underlying endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like conduyt_whatsapp_senders and conduyt_whatsapp_status, but never names them to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Gives real usage context: only APPROVED templates can be sent, and outreach outside a contact's 24-hour window must use one. It does not say when to call this tool versus conduyt_whatsapp_senders or conduyt_send_sms, so the comparison is left to inference.

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