WHOOP Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns 'local' posture and 'without revealing secret values,' which goes beyond annotations and informs the agent of safe, non-exposing behavior.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and listing all covered aspects without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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's moderate complexity (multiple audit aspects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description adequately enumerates all covered areas and the key guarantee about secret values. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The single parameter response_format is fully self-documented in the schema (enum of markdown/json with default markdown). Despite 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself provides complete semantics, so the description does not need to compensate. The default and enum are unambiguous.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource ('local privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence and redaction posture'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like whoop_cache_status or whoop_connection_status by combining multiple audit dimensions.

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 the tool is for auditing privacy posture without revealing secrets, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is self-evident. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the specific audit focus.

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