whoop_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers source (local DB), speed, rate limit, and prerequisite sync, but misses details on permission requirements, whether data is read-only, and what happens without metric. Leave room for improvement.

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 brief (three short sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be more streamlined.

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 simple two-parameter interface and presence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the tool's purpose and key functionality. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and full detail on return values, leaving some gaps.

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 compensate. It gives examples for the metric parameter and implies days via default, but does not explicitly describe the days parameter or its effect. Partial but not comprehensive.

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 it performs long-term evaluation from a local database rather than the API, and mentions returning a trend comparison when a metric is provided. While it clearly indicates the data source and distinguishes from API-based tools, the exact scope of 'history' is somewhat vague.

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 mentions a prerequisite (prior sync) and performance benefits (fast, no rate limit), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like whoop_recovery or whoop_sleep. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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