whoop_get_workout_history

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the data fields (sport, duration, strain, calories) but omits details like ordering, pagination, date filtering, or how 'recent' is defined. It also does not disclose authentication requirements or limits in the description, though limits appear in the schema.

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 extremely short, a single noun phrase, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key concept 'recent workouts'. However, it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence, and may be terse to the point of omitting critical context.

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?

There is no output schema, and annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what the agent can expect. It fails to mention ordering, pagination, default limit, available response formats, or the difference from a single workout query. For a history tool, this is insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and response_format), each with their own descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'recent' vaguely relates to limit but does not enhance schema understanding.

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 states what the tool does: it returns recent workouts with sport, duration, strain, and calories. The phrase 'multiple past workouts' distinguishes it from the sibling whoop_get_workout which likely targets a single workout. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is clear from the tool name and context.

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. It does not mention that whoop_get_workout is for a single workout or when a history view is appropriate. The only implied usage is that it returns multiple workouts, but no explicit conditions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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