waha_get_group_join_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of being a read-only operation that doesn't join the group, which is essential context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific information is returned, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, perfectly front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and immediately understandable.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values and potential behavioral constraints, which could be helpful for a complete understanding.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'code'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, edge cases). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get group information') and resource ('from invite link'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'waha_join_group' by explicitly noting 'without joining'. This provides precise differentiation from related tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('from invite link without joining'), which clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'waha_join_group' for actually joining or 'waha_get_group_info' for getting info from already-joined groups. This provides perfect contextual guidance.

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