whoop_get_cache_status

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

The description discloses the return content (status, age, TTL remaining) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or if there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden and could be more transparent about the tool's safe, non-mutating nature.

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 exceptionally concise, using a noun phrase to convey the essential information in only a few words. There is no filler or redundancy, though it could be slightly expanded into a full sentence for better readability.

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 cache status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (status, age, TTL remaining). It covers the key return values, which is essential in the absence of an output schema. The main missing element is usage guidance, which is already scored separately.

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 optional parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema with an enum, default, and description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly indicates the tool reports cache freshness metadata (status, age, TTL remaining). It distinguishes itself from sibling data getters by focusing on cache status rather than health or workout data. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action, so it's slightly less clear than a full verb-led description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whoop_invalidate_cache or whoop_check_health. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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