whatsapp_list_groups

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape, which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what prerequisites exist (macOS WhatsApp client, Full Disk Access, running app), or what 'accessible' filters out — the blacklist/whitelist concept surfaces only obliquely via the undefined 'accessible' and is never explained.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no restating of the tool name. The dense field enumeration earns its length because there is no output schema, though it reads as a comma-spliced list rather than a structured statement.

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 read-only, four-optional-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields well but leaves gaps on prerequisites and on what the non-default parameters (fresh, include_blocked) actually do in practice. Adequate to call the tool, thin on the operational context an agent needs to call it correctly on the first try.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents fresh, format, keyword, and include_blocked; the description adds no meaning to any of them and never mentions snapshot refresh, output format, or policy inclusion. The one implicit link is 'accessible' tying loosely to include_blocked, but it is not explained. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema largely does the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List accessible macOS WhatsApp group chats') and enumerates what comes back (chat_id @g.us, group_name, cursor, 24h count, member count), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast with whatsapp_fetch_messages or whatsapp_search_messages, but the resource noun ('group chats' vs. messages/media) makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though siblings like whatsapp_search_messages overlap in intent (finding things). The word 'accessible' hints at a policy layer but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over message-level tools.

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