WHOOP Sleeps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: 'Requires read:sleep scope', 'Supports start/end filters and WHOOP pagination', and the conditional 'when scored', which clarifies that some sleeps may lack scoring fields. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence earns its place: it covers what is returned, filtering/pagination behavior, required scope, and a necessary health-data disclaimer. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 rich annotations, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: the resource type, filters, pagination, scoring conditionality, and required scope. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not help the agent choose between this and sibling sleep-related tools, but the schema and output schema cover most invocation details.

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 89%, so the schema already carries most parameter semantics. The description adds general context like 'start/end filters' and 'WHOOP pagination', which maps to multiple parameters, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'WHOOP sleep activities', and it adds meaningful detail about returned data (stages, performance, consistency, efficiency). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like whoop_get_sleep, whoop_list_cycles, or whoop_list_recoveries, 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 description implies use for retrieving a paginated, filtered list of WHOOP sleep activities and mentions start/end filters and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over whoop_get_sleep or other sibling list tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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