whoop_get_heart_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the source can be 'live/decay/resting', which adds behavioral context about the data's nature. However, it does not mention response format behavior, data freshness limits, or any permissions, though these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Current heart rate') and then specifies the returned context. No wasted words; every phrase adds informational value.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the context (source and baseline). While it doesn't explain how to interpret the source values or provide examples, the output is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 parameter (response_format) is fully described in the schema with enum values, default, and explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already covers it fully, 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 identifies the resource (heart rate) and specifies the returned context (HR value, source, resting HR baseline), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like whoop_get_stats or whoop_get_recovery. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', relying on the tool name to imply the action.

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. It does not mention exclusions, such as 'for historical heart rate use whoop_get_heart_rate_history' (which is not a sibling but implied). There is no explicit context for when this tool is preferable.

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