get_strain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that strain is WHOOP's 0-21 cardiovascular load score and mentions the data includes avg & max heart rate. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or constraints on the days parameter.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a clarifying line. Front-loaded with the tool's action and key data, every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or how 'daily strain' is defined relative to the current day. Compared to siblings, it provides enough context for a simple query but not full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It states 'days defaults to 7' and relates it to fetching N days of data, which gives the semantic meaning. However, it does not specify allowed range, units, or whether negative values are allowed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool gets daily strain and cycle data, including strain score and heart rate metrics. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, but the data type (strain) is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 like daily_summary or get_workouts. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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