whoop_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists content fields. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether data may be cached, or that response_format allows markdown/json output. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, compact fragment that lists key config fields without redundancy. It is efficient and easy to scan, though not a complete sentence.

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 config-getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main content (mode, base URL, scopes, cache TTL). It could be improved by mentioning the configurable response formats, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (response_format) with enum and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the high schema coverage (100%) warrants the baseline score.

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 tool retrieves server configuration and enumerates specific elements (mode, base URL, scopes, cache TTL). This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools (stats, recovery, sleep) and health/cache management tools.

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 intended use is implied by the descriptive fragment, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., for configuration inspection vs. data queries or health checks). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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