WHOOP Privacy Audit

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns local privacy, cache state, token path, environment presence, and redaction posture, and crucially states that it does not reveal secret values, which manages expectations beyond the structured 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 a single sentence of 14 words, directly stating the tool's output without extraneous information. Every word is necessary and informative.

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?

The description lists key output categories without detailing the output schema structure. While an output schema exists, the description could better bridge the parameter to the output format. For a one-parameter tool, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's effect.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'response_format' parameter or its effect on output format. The schema provides enum and default, but the agent misses semantic context about choosing output representation.

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 specific nouns ('privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence, redaction posture') and clearly states the action ('return'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific data retrieval or settings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whoop_cache_status or whoop_capabilities. The description implies a use case (auditing privacy before operations) but does not provide exclusions or comparisons.

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