WHOOP Agent Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two genuine behavioral claims beyond them: it does not read WHOOP data and does not expose secrets, which is meaningful safety context for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the exclusion clause follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the parameters are simple enums. Combined with low tool complexity, the description is largely sufficient, missing only explicit invocation guidance.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden. It hints at the client parameter via 'client guidance' and at output format via 'machine-readable', but never explains what the client enum values change or what markdown vs json response_format does. Partial compensation only.

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 names a specific output (machine-readable install, runtime and client guidance) and even clarifies scope with 'Does not read WHOOP or expose secrets.' This clearly separates it from the data-reading siblings, though it never names a specific sibling alternative like whoop_capabilities or whoop_quickstart.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent needing install/runtime guidance would infer this tool, and 'Does not read WHOOP' excludes the data-reading siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or pointer to an alternative like whoop_capabilities for capability discovery.

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