whoop_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it reads the local database only and requires whoop_sync for fresh data, but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, and any explicit read-only or non-destructive statement.

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 sentences, zero waste. The key data fields and ordering are front-loaded, and the operational note about the local database and sync is efficiently appended.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly enumerates the returned fields and ordering. It also provides the important prerequisite about syncing first, making it sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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 fully documents the days and limit parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific resource (workouts) and the exact data fields returned, plus the ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like whoop_sleep or whoop_recovery without needing schema inspection.

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?

It provides a prerequisite to use whoop_sync first to refresh, which implies when stale data is a concern. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternative tools such as whoop_cycles or whoop_overview.

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