whoop_get_strain

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists output fields but does not explain how 'Daily' is determined (e.g., today's data, most recent), whether authentication is required, or if any side effects exist. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise fragment that front-loads the core purpose and key fields. No unnecessary words, though it is slightly telegraphic and could benefit from a full 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?

Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately lists the returned metrics, but it leaves open questions about the time period (daily vs. current), return shape (single object vs. array), and prerequisite authorization. It is minimally viable but not fully 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 only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 tool as returning daily strain metrics, listing strain score (0-21), kilojoules, and average/max heart rate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recovery or workout, though it does not explicitly differentiate from whoop_get_strain_history, relying on the 'Daily' scope to imply a single day's data.

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 such as whoop_get_strain_history or other metric tools. It only states the resource and output fields, with no mention of exclusions or preferred use cases.

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