get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a read, and the description names three fields, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, whether the call is rate-limited, or what happens on failure. For a simple zero-parameter getter this is adequate but shallow.

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?

It is two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose comes first, then the usage note, so the key information is 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must sketch the return value, and naming user id, name, and email does that. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it does not say whether more fields might come back or how the call behaves without auth.

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 tool accepts no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. That puts it at the baseline of 4, and no parameter text is missing.

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 ('Returns') plus a specific resource ('the user's basic Whoop profile') and enumerates the fields returned (user id, name, email). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data tools (get_recovery, get_sleep, get_workouts, get_cycles), though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 sentence 'Use it to identify whose data is being read' gives a concrete situation in which to call the tool, which is exactly the agent's decision point. It does not state when not to call it or name an alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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