Cycle recommend training

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds version-specific behavior (v0.3.3 supports cycle_irregular for PCOS-aware mode) but does not describe return format, failure cases, or data requirements beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The version note adds relevant context without excessive verbosity. Minor deduction for the version string being somewhat tangential to invocation, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description states what it returns ('training recommendations') and hints at inputs ('period history'), but does not explain expected history shape, today parameter usage, or privacy_mode implications, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 25% (only privacy_mode has a description). The description compensates partially by explaining cycle_irregular's purpose, but it does not clarify the semantics of history or today, which remain undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 verb ('returns training recommendations') and the resource ('user's current phase' based on 'period history'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cycle_recommend_nutrition and cycle_phase_guidance by specifically targeting training.

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 contextual guidance ('Pair with WHOOP/Oura/Garmin recovery for late-luteal load adjustments'), indicating a usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, leaving usage boundaries implicit rather than explicit.

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