WHOOP Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds important behavioral context: it does not call WHOOP and does not expose secrets. It also lists the specific components checked (env vars, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache), going beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states what is checked, and the second provides a safety note. It is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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?

For a simple read-only status check, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, scope, and safety. The presence of an output schema means return format is documented elsewhere. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools, but overall it is sufficient.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. The description does not mention the 'client' or 'response_format' parameters at all. While the parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value in explaining them, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resources checked: local WHOOP env vars, token file, Node version, privacy mode, and cache. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by stating it does not call WHOOP, indicating a local-only readiness check.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to verify local readiness before making API calls. It also states it does not call WHOOP, providing context that this is safe. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria for when not to use it, though siblings like whoop_get_profile and whoop_cache_status exist.

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