whoop_get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what data is included but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how data is aggregated, data freshness, potential null values, response structure, or any rate limits or dependencies. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the scope of included metrics.

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 enumerates the biometric data covered. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 has no output schema and minimal annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining return values and usage context. While it lists the included metrics, it does not describe the output structure, units, or how to interpret the snapshot. It also lacks guidance on when to use this aggregate tool versus specific metric 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 description does not mention the 'response_format' parameter, but the input schema provides full coverage of that parameter with an enum, default, and description. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 this is a comprehensive snapshot of biometric data, listing the specific metrics included (recovery, strain, HR, etc.). This distinguishes it from the individual whoop_get_* sibling tools, though the verb is implied rather than explicit ('snapshot' as a noun).

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 label 'Full biometric snapshot' implies this tool is used to get a broad overview rather than calling individual metric endpoints, providing an implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions, leaving this to inference.

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