Get WHOOP cycle strain history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about scoring states (SCORED vs PENDING_SCORE) and provisional data, which goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data completeness and reliability.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, using technical terms efficiently.

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 existence of an output schema and a single simple parameter, the description adequately covers the tool's context. It mentions recent data and scoring status, though the phrase 'processing state' could be slightly more explicit. Overall, sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100% with the days parameter fully described (type, range, default). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient detail.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing cycle strain history with specifics about scored records and provisional strain for pending cycles. It distinguishes from sibling tools (overview, sleep, workout) by focusing on physiological cycle processing state and strain metrics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like whoop_latest_overview, whoop_sleep_history, or whoop_workout_history. The description lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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