WHOOP Cycle Recovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description only adds 'Not medical advice' and the scope requirement, which are not behavioral traits. It does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as data freshness, error handling, or side effects beyond what the annotations provide.

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 very concise with two short sentences. The purpose is stated first, followed by a scope requirement and a legal disclaimer. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured by separating the disclaimer. Still, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and three parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core function but lacks detail on what the recovery data includes, how to interpret the response, or any caveats about using the id. For a tool with many siblings, more context about when to use this recovery endpoint would improve completeness.

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 input schema covers 2 out of 3 parameters with descriptions (67%), but the tool description itself adds no parameter-level information. It does not explain what the 'id' represents (though schema says 'WHOOP resource id'), nor does it clarify the effect of privacy_mode or response_format. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Get the recovery associated with a WHOOP cycle,' specifying the verb (get), resource (recovery), and association (with a cycle). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like whoop_get_cycle (gets the cycle itself) and whoop_get_cycle_sleep (gets sleep for a cycle).

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 mentions the required scope ('requires read:recovery scope'), which is a prerequisite. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when not to use it. The purpose is implied but not explicitly differentiated from similar tools.

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