List groups

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds value beyond them: it states the data comes from WhatsApp itself (fresh, not cached), warns against polling, and explains the 429 whatsapp_rate_limited response with retry_after. Return shape and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the polling warning and the rate-limit contract. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the important operational context (source of truth, no polling, 429 handling). It stops short of describing what each returned group contains, which would be the only remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, and there are no parameter semantics to add.

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 (List) plus resource (WhatsApp groups) and scopes it to "this channel's number is in," so an agent knows it returns group membership for the connected number. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the group-related sibling get_group or from list_chats, so it falls short of 5.

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?

"do not poll it" is an explicit usage constraint, which is more than nothing, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_group or list_chats, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than framed against alternatives.

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