Cycle phase guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the 'luteal_extended' phase and the 'cycle_irregular' flag's effect, adding some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or how errors are handled, leaving gaps.

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: the first clearly states the tool's primary function, and the second adds key details about supported phases and a flag. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and important parameter nuances. It lacks details about the return format, but for a recommendation tool, this is acceptable.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context about the version and the cycle_irregular flag's behavior, but the schema already describes the flag. The added value is marginal, so scores at baseline with minor improvement.

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 states the tool returns evidence-informed recommendations for a given phase, specifying nutrition, training, and hydration. This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that offer separate nutrition and training recommendations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cycle_recommend_nutrition or cycle_recommend_training. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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