Cycle full report

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: it produces a TL;DR string for quick agent rendering and mentions that version v0.3.3 supports 'cycle_irregular: true' for PCOS-aware mode. These details enrich understanding beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core functionality. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines what the report contains, and the second clarifies the TL;DR and the version-specific cycle_irregular behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description needs to convey what the agent will receive and what inputs are essential. While it lists report components and mentions the TL;DR, it does not explain the required 'history' parameter format or the optionality/behavior of 'today' and 'privacy_mode'. This lack of operational detail means an agent may not invoke the tool correctly without extra research.

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 low at 25%, meaning most parameters lack in-schema documentation. The description adds only minimal parameter-semantic value by explaining cycle_irregular's purpose. It fails to describe history, today, or privacy_mode, leaving agents to infer their meaning from the schema alone. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 clear purpose: a single-call report that combines phase, nutrition, training, hydration, and next-period estimate. This makes it evident that the tool produces an aggregated report. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the wording 'full report' and the component list distinguish it from more granular sibling tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cycle_estimate_phase or cycle_predict_next_period. It only mentions it is a 'single-call report,' which loosely implies a use case for needing multiple data types at once, but this is not directly stated as a condition for selection.

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