List groups

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds beyond that: data is read live from WhatsApp, covers all groups the account is in, and includes participant count. It doesn't detail pagination behavior, but schema covers cursor/limit and annotations cover safety.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope and data freshness, and a useful pointer to the sibling tool. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the key return element (participant count) and scope. Pagination and full response shape are only implied by the cursor/limit parameters, leaving a small gap, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail and doesn't add much beyond the account scope.

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?

Description states a specific action: list every group the account is in, read live from WhatsApp, with participant count. It distinguishes itself from get_group by pointing to it for participant details.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (listing all groups) and explicitly routes to get_group when participants are needed. It doesn't exhaustively cover when not to use it, but the alternative is named.

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