Get the WhatsApp connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the meaning of different connection states ('connected' means the tools work, 'not_linked' means login is needed), the interpretation of sync state, and the semantics of contacts_named: 0. This gives the agent a more accurate mental model of what to expect.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence front-loads the core purpose and status meanings, the parenthetical clarifies what each status implies for tool availability, and the second sentence gives actionable invocation triggers. Every detail earns its place, and no filler or redundant language is present.

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?

With no output schema to document return values, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the ranges of connection states and their actionable meanings, sync state, account identity, last activity, versions/directory, and the edge case of contacts_named=0. Given the tool's zero-parameter, diagnostic nature, the description is complete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details. There is no parameter information missing.

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 verb ('Check the session') and resource (WhatsApp session status), then enumerates exactly what is reported: connection status, history sync, linked account, last message time, versions, data directory, and named contacts count. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are focused on contacts, messages, sending, and group operations.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it whenever another tool reports NOT_CONNECTED, NOT_LINKED, or SYNC_IN_PROGRESS, or to confirm which account is about to be used for sending. It also maps the 'not_linked' status to a concrete user action (run `npx wazap-mcp login`), giving the agent both the trigger and the resolution path.

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