WHOOP Cycle Recovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the required read:recovery scope and including a 'Not medical advice' disclaimer, which are not visible in the schema or annotations.

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: one clear sentence stating the action and resource, followed by two essential short notes (scope requirement and disclaimer). No redundant or filler content is present.

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, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the core action, the required scope, and a caveat. It could be enhanced with an explicit alternative (e.g., use whoop_list_recoveries to list recoveries), but this is a minor gap for a single-resource getter.

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 75% of parameters, and the description clarifies that the 'id' parameter is a WHOOP cycle id, which is not stated in the schema ('WHOOP resource id'). This adds meaningful semantic meaning. The other parameters (privacy_mode, response_format, explicit_user_intent) are already well described in the schema, so the baseline is appropriately elevated.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recovery associated with a WHOOP cycle'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like whoop_list_recoveries (which lists recoveries) and whoop_get_cycle (which gets the cycle itself). This gives the agent a precise understanding of the tool's function.

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 implies usage when you have a WHOOP cycle id and need its associated recovery, and it notes the required read:recovery scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the distinction from whoop_list_recoveries and whoop_get_cycle implied rather than explicit.

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