Get WHOOP cycle strain history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns 'current-cycle status', which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not elaborate on data freshness, recency guarantees, or any processing state implications beyond the term itself.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Front-loads the key data fields. Slightly packed with terms but remains readable. Could be improved with a clear action verb or structured list, but efficient enough.

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, combined with annotations and existence of an output schema, provides adequate context for a simple parameter-less tool. However, it does not explain what 'local physiological-cycle' means or how the data relates to a specific user. Slightly vague but not incomplete.

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 already describes the single 'days' parameter with type, range, and default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists specific data points (strain, calories, heart rate, etc.) from physiological-cycle signals, making the tool's output clear. The verb 'Get' is in the title, and though not repeated in the description, the purpose is unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cycle strain rather than recovery, sleep, or workouts.

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 on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'whoop_recovery_history' or 'whoop_latest_overview'. No mention of context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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