whoop_sleep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the tool reads only a local cache, samples are ordered newest-first, and naps are included. It omits any note on pagination behavior or what happens when the local DB is empty, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and in what order, the second front-loads the data-source constraint and the required action. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the payload fields and ordering. Combined with the sync prerequisite and local-only data source, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'days' and 'limit' with defaults and bounds. The description adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource (sleeps, including naps) and enumerates the returned metrics — stage durations, sleep need, respiratory rate, performance, efficiency — with an explicit ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from siblings like whoop_recovery and whoop_workouts, though it never uses an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return'.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: 'Reads the local database only; run whoop_sync first to refresh.' It tells the agent when the data may be stale and what to call. It does not, however, contrast with sibling retrieval tools such as whoop_overview, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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