whatsapp_get_group_info_from_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid invite code), rate limits, or any side effects. The behavior is generally clear but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every token contributes to the purpose and context. Highly concise and efficient.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but does not specify what information is returned (e.g., group name, picture, participant count). For a preview tool, listing returned fields would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'code' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds 'without joining' context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Preview group information from an invite code without joining.' clearly states the action (preview), resource (group info from invite code), and adds key context (without joining), effectively distinguishing it from similar tools like whatsapp_join_group_with_link.

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 for preview before joining, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whatsapp_get_group or whatsapp_join_group_with_link). No direct guidance on context or exclusions.

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