Device status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It honestly states that it reports online/offline status, instructs the user to open a pairing URL when offline, and clarifies that it does not initiate QR/pairing races. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail return format or error 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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value. The first states the primary purpose, the second provides actionable pairing guidance, and the third sets a behavioral boundary. No waste or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers listing behavior, status reporting, offline handling, and what it intentionally avoids. A small gap is that it does not describe the exact structure of the returned status, but the phrase 'report online/offline' sufficiently implies the core output.

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 100% (device_id is fully described). The description adds minimal extra meaning ('or one device by id' and 'when omitted, lists all devices') which mostly overlaps with the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List LoginWA WhatsApp devices (or one device by id) and report online/offline honestly.' It uses a specific verb (list/report) and identifies the resource (devices), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on campaigns and messaging.

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 implies when to use the tool: to check device status and inform pairing if offline. It explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not start in-chat QR/pairing races'), which sets expectations, though it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that exclusion.

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