WHOOP Cache Status

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds real context the annotations do not carry: that the cache is opt-in and gated behind an environment variable, which explains a disabled/empty result. It still says nothing about what the status output contains, but with annotations covering the safety profile that is acceptable at this level.

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, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the configuration detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 not be described, and the low-complexity read tool is largely covered by the purpose plus enable instructions. The gap is the unaddressed response_format parameter, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, response_format, with 0% schema description coverage and a default. The description never mentions output format, so it neither explains the enum values nor compensates for the coverage gap. Since there is a parameter (not zero), the zero-parameter baseline of 4 does not apply.

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 verb and resource: 'Show ... local SQLite cache status'. An agent can immediately tell this reports cache state rather than auth or data state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named whoop_connection_status sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'optional' and the enable instructions ('Enable with WHOOP_CACHE=sqlite or WHOOP_CACHE=true') imply the feature may be off and hint at when this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing versus whoop_connection_status or whoop_data_inventory.

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