get_whatsapp_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns (combined state) but fails to mention that it is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or default behavior when parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key components efficiently. It wastes no words, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet list) for readability. Overall, it is concise without being under-specified.

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?

Given the three optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) or explain what 'query' in brackets means. Agents need additional context to decide how to use parameters effectively and interpret results. This is a gap for a health check tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only lists the components in the health check. The parameter descriptions in the schema are basic, and the description does not clarify filtering semantics (e.g., whether direction values are IN/OUT or something else). Thus, it adds marginal value.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: a comprehensive health check of WhatsApp that combines session status, 24-hour message activity, and active workflows. The use of 'completo' and enumeration of components gives a specific and complete understanding, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_whatsapp_connection_status or get_whatsapp_workflow_activity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternatives for more specific queries (e.g., get_whatsapp_status for a simpler check). The implication is limited to needing a combined health overview, but without exclusion criteria.

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