get_sync_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Reads nothing from WhatsApp', which informs the agent that this is a safe, local read operation with no network or write side effects. It does not cover edge cases like unlinked devices, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with 'Report', lists key output fields, and the second adds a valuable safety qualifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns: link status, last sync time, and archive counts. It also clarifies the local nature of the data. There is no additional complexity requiring more context, making the description complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none to explain. The schema coverage is effectively 100% since the input schema is empty, so no additional meaning is needed beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the local archive status'. It lists the exact pieces of information provided (linked device, last sync time, counts of archived chats/messages), which differentiates it from sibling tools that access individual chats, messages, or attachments.

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 a clear use case: when an AI agent needs to know the sync/link status or archive counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with sibling tools (list_chats, get_message, etc.) is implicit and sufficient for a simple status query tool.

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