whoop_get_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists the data returned and gives no information about authentication needs, cache behavior, whether it fetches from the API, or whether it returns the most recent recovery. This is minimal behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key return fields. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description partially covers the return values by listing metrics. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether this is the current/latest recovery vs. historical, and omits relevant context like requiring authorization (given sibling tools whoop_authorize, whoop_check_health, and cache tools).

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 has one optional parameter (response_format) with full enum documentation, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not mention this parameter, but the schema fully defines it, so the description adds no needed semantic value. Baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Recovery score and details' and enumerates the returned metrics (score, resting HR, HRV, SpO2, skin temp). It distinguishes from the sibling 'whoop_get_recovery_history' by implying current recovery, though it does not explicitly say 'current' or contrast with the history tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention whether to use this for the latest recovery vs. historical data, nor does it reference sibling tools such as whoop_get_recovery_history. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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