engine

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load — and it does disclose the important behavioral detail that an empty array means no engine connected rather than an error, plus the per-entry field set ({id, type, connected, state, stream, hasSynced}). It omits auth/permission requirements and the meaning of fields like state and stream.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by action and return semantics, with no filler. The "Available actions" heading and an example for a single-action tool are slightly over-structured for what is essentially one call, but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter, single-action read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the action, the return array shape, and the empty-array non-error case. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is a one-value enum ("status") that is self-documenting; the description nonetheless explains what that action does and what it returns. Minor gap: no note that the enum is currently limited to a single action.

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 verb and resource: "Inspect the WhatsApp engine(s) connected to this account." No sibling (chats, contacts, groups, campaigns, webhooks, etc.) overlaps with connection/engine status, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 example framing ("is WhatsApp connected?") implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor a named alternative. With only one action available, the guidance burden is low, so implied usage is adequate but not strong.

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