whatsapp_get_community_sub_groups

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return information (groups and their JIDs), but does not mention pagination, ordering, or error behavior for invalid community JIDs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core action is stated first, followed by safety and return information.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and return content. It is nearly complete, though minor details like pagination or ordering are omitted.

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 100%, and the single parameter is documented as 'Community JID'. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list groups linked to a community. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like whatsapp_get_groups or whatsapp_get_community by scoping the result to a community's sub-groups.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when an agent needs the groups belonging to a specific community. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related community/group listing tools.

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