WHOOP Cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the read:cycles scope requirement, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about the privacy_mode escalation path or what happens when the id is missing.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, prerequisite second. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the auth scope is disclosed. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the single-vs-list routing and privacy escalation left implicit.

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 75% with the privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent parameters already well documented in-schema. The description adds 'numeric cycle id', but that slightly conflicts with the schema, which accepts a string or integer, so the added detail is not fully accurate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (WHOOP cycle) scoped to a single record ('one ... by numeric cycle id'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling whoop_list_cycles. However, it never names the sibling or explains the single-vs-list distinction explicitly.

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 gives one prerequisite ('Requires read:cycles scope') but offers no guidance on when to use this single-fetch tool versus whoop_list_cycles or the related whoop_get_cycle_sleep / whoop_get_cycle_recovery siblings. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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