whatsapp_list_communities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context ('returns the communities and their JIDs'), but it does not discuss pagination, authentication, or ordering. Repeating 'Read-only' adds little beyond the annotation.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier and return summary follow efficiently.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and what is returned. It could mention whether results are paginated or include additional metadata, but the essential information for calling it correctly is present.

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 schema provides no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('communities'), scoped to those the connected number belongs to. It is distinguishable from single-community tools like whatsapp_get_community, but it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative or contrast behavior.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as whatsapp_get_community for detailed community data. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'belongs to'.

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