Sync My Cycle

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: it needs the last period start, and when `period_may_be_late` is true the returned say line flags a possibly late period and recommends a doctor. It does not describe the phase output itself, but that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the safety boundary, then the edge-case note — a sensible priority order. It is on the longer side, and the two quoted user utterances plus the safety paragraph are verbose, though each carries real routing 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers trigger, required input, medical scope limits and one rendering edge case. It does not sketch what the phase/workout/food response contains, which would help, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter (tz, country, cycle_length, diet, last_period_start alias, etc.) is already fully documented. The description only restates the required input ('Needs the first day of their last period'), contributing nothing beyond the schema — the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Today's cycle phase, with workout and food ideas'), making the output self-evident. The word 'Today's' implicitly separates it from get_week_ahead and list_phases, but it never names those siblings or states the contrast 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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions (user asks what phase they are in, what to train, why energy is up or down) with two concrete example utterances. It also names when NOT to use it (fertile days, ovulation timing, contraception, pregnancy) and routes the user to a doctor or pharmacist.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds a genuine edge case: when period_may_be_late is true, days is empty and the say line recommends a doctor. That is real behavioral context beyond the 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded and the return fields follow immediately. The pregnancy/contraception exclusion is stated twice in slightly different wording, which is mild redundancy but not enough to obscure the message.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers the main edge case. For a 9-parameter planning tool, it is close to complete; a note on how the period_may_be_late signal is derived would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (including the deprecated last_period_start alias and the no-op diet) is already documented. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific resource (the days ahead) and enumerates the returned fields (phase, workout focus, intensity, food focus), which clearly separates it from get_todays_phase. It never names the siblings, but 'days ahead' vs a single-day tool is readily inferable.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('plan training or meals for the week') with an example utterance, plus explicit when-not boundaries around fertility/pregnancy/contraception. What it lacks is routing language pointing to get_todays_phase for a single day.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is handled structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this tool is scoped to general wellbeing and must not be used for medical or reproductive-planning questions, which the annotations cannot express. It does not say anything about output shape, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded and short overall, but the exclusion list is stated twice ('Not for conception, fertile days, contraception or pregnancy' then again 'not for pregnancy planning or contraception'), which is pure redundancy. The opening sentence also duplicates the title instead of adding information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what content comes back, when to invoke it, and the boundary conditions. Nothing material is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no coverage gap to compensate for. The description correctly frames the tool as date-free, which is the only 'parameter-like' constraint that matters here.

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 states a specific resource (cycle phase reference content: feelings, workouts, food ideas) and implicitly scopes itself against the date-based siblings via 'questions that need no dates'. The first sentence merely restates the title verbatim, which costs it a point, but the added scope sentence makes the tool distinguishable from get_todays_phase and get_week_ahead.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with a concrete example ('what should I eat in my luteal phase?') and an explicit when-not-use list (conception, fertile days, contraception, pregnancy). Routes the agent away from a whole class of intents without ambiguity.

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