list_whatsapp_agents

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it shows all available agents, but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'available' means. The name suggests read-only, but the description is minimal.

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 one clear sentence front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words. Efficient for a simple list operation.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on return structure or fields. It is adequate but not rich. Given no output schema, more context on what the list contains could help.

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?

Input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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?

Tool name 'list_whatsapp_agents' and description 'Listar agentes de atencion — Muestra todos los agentes disponibles para asignar en workflows de WhatsApp [query]' clearly state the action (list), resource (agents), and scope (WhatsApp workflows). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agents' and 'list_agents_json' by specifying WhatsApp context.

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 use when needing agents for WhatsApp workflow assignments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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