whoop_baseline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: read-only local database access and a sync prerequisite. It stops short of detailing error behavior or output format beyond the metric list, but for a zero-parameter aggregate tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the computation front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains what is computed and lists the metrics, giving the agent enough to understand the return. The sync precondition covers the main operational dependency, though exact timezone or freshness details are omitted.

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?

Zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema); per rubric, a zero-parameter tool starts at 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which 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?

States a specific computation (30-day mean and standard deviation) across named vitals, so the agent knows exactly what resource is produced. The scope is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like whoop_recovery or whoop_sleep.

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?

Provides a precondition ('run whoop_sync first to refresh') and notes local-only reads, which helps operational timing. However, it does not say when to choose this aggregate over sibling tools or what question it answers (e.g., comparing current metrics to baseline).

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