Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• whoop_cycle_strain_historyA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about scoring states (SCORED vs PENDING_SCORE) and provisional data, which goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data completeness and reliability.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, using technical terms efficiently.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the existence of an output schema and a single simple parameter, the description adequately covers the tool's context. It mentions recent data and scoring status, though the phrase 'processing state' could be slightly more explicit. Overall, sufficient for a read-only tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with the days parameter fully described (type, range, default). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient detail.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as providing cycle strain history with specifics about scored records and provisional strain for pending cycles. It distinguishes from sibling tools (overview, sleep, workout) by focusing on physiological cycle processing state and strain metrics.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like whoop_latest_overview, whoop_sleep_history, or whoop_workout_history. The description lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

• whoop_latest_overviewA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the overview is 'compact local-time' and includes provisional live data, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single dense sentence that could be more readable. While concise, it packs many details without breaks, reducing clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description lists all included components (sleep, recovery, strain, workout, activity types, body measurement). It adequately covers the overview context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4; description does not need to compensate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it provides a compact coaching overview including sleep status, recovery, strain, workout, activity types, and body measurement. It differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific history (sleep, cycle strain, workout).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The title 'latest overview' implies use for current latest info, contrasting with sibling history tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• whoop_sleep_historyA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: finalized metrics are only returned when WHOOP marks the record as SCORED. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies data availability.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence (22 words) that front-loads core information. Every part is meaningful with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given simple parameters, presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It mentions the scored condition, which is critical. Minor omissions like processing state details are likely covered by the output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema fully describes both parameters (days range, include_naps boolean) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves WHOOP sleep history with specific fields (bedtime, wake time, type, state, metrics) and distinguishes from sibling tools like cycle strain or workout history by focusing on sleep. The title reinforces the purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the purpose and sibling names imply this is for sleep history queries. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

• whoop_workout_historyA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by noting that score-derived metrics are only present when WHOOP marks a record as SCORED, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but present) and describes the returned fields adequately, the description is complete. It covers the key aspects for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its conditional behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'days' already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it returns recent workout history with specific fields (sport, local time, duration, processing state, conditional score metrics). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like whoop_sleep_history or whoop_cycle_strain_history.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for retrieving workout history but does not explicitly specify when to choose this over siblings (e.g., whoop_latest_overview for overview or whoop_sleep_history for sleep data). No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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