whoop_check_health

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning status per endpoint, token expiry, and connection state. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only operation or describe any potential side effects or rate limits.

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 very brief and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose in one line. It is not a full sentence but avoids redundancy. Slightly more structure or a verb would make it clearer, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

The description lists key aspects of the health report but does not fully describe the return format beyond the response_format parameter. It lacks details on how endpoint statuses are presented or any limitations, though the tool is simple and has no output schema.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (response_format), including its default and meaning. The description does not add any further parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as reporting connection and endpoint health, including token expiry and connection state. While it lacks a specific verb like 'check' or 'retrieve', it clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on health status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like whoop_get_cache_status or whoop_authorize that might be relevant for health checks.

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