waha_get_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes the action ('List') and scope ('session account is in'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, any potential side effects, or permission requirements. The lack of an output schema means the agent is left guessing about the structure of the returned data.

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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource 'groups'. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states that it lists all groups for the session account. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what a 'group' includes (e.g., metadata, participants) or whether an empty list is possible, but the low complexity keeps the bar modest.

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, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter information to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters since none exist.

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 clearly states the action ('List all groups') and resource ('groups'), with a specific scope ('the session account is in'). This distinguishes it from siblings like waha_get_group (singular) and waha_get_chats by emphasizing 'all' and 'session account'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons are given, but the phrase 'List all groups' implies the tool is for retrieving a complete list rather than a single group. Sibling tools like waha_get_group and waha_get_chats exist, but the description doesn't mention them or exclusion criteria.

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