get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. The description indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and lists the returned data fields, which implies no destructive side effects. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness, but given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), these gaps are minor and acceptable.

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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get the WHOOP user's basic profile') and then lists the fields and usage context efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what information it retrieves, and when to use it. There are no missing details that would hinder correct invocation.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied), and the description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explicitly naming the returned fields. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 and resource ('Get the WHOOP user's basic profile') and lists the exact fields returned: name, email, height, weight, and max heart rate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recovery, get_sleep, or get_workouts, which focus on different data domains.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for identity or body-metric questions'), providing clear context for its purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, but the sibling names are distinct enough that the agent can deduce this.

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