WHOOP Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming no external call or secret exposure, providing safety context beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the main purpose and a key constraint (no API call, no secrets). Efficient and well front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, the output schema exists (not shown but mentioned), and annotations cover safety, the description provides reasonable completeness. However, it lacks parameter guidance, which lowers it slightly.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), yet the description does not elaborate on the two parameters (client, response_format). The description adds no meaning beyond the enum names.

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 clearly states the tool checks local readiness of WHOOP env vars, token file, Node version, privacy mode, and cache. It uses a specific verb (check) and resource (connection status), and distinguishes itself from siblings that call WHOOP APIs.

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 indicates the tool is local and safe ('Does not call WHOOP or expose secrets'), implying it can be used as a readiness check before calling API tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to siblings.

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