WHOOP Cycle Sleep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, providing safety context. The description adds the authorization requirement (requires read:sleep scope), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as defaults, limitations, or response handling 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 extremely concise: three sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes only necessary notes on scope and a disclaimer, with every sentence earning its place.

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 description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any integration with related cycles. The output schema and annotations cover safety and return values, but usage context is missing.

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 meaningful descriptions for id, privacy_mode, and explicit_user_intent. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already provides adequate semantics for most parameters. The response_format parameter lacks a schema description but is self-explanatory via its enum and default.

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 specific action: 'Get the sleep associated with a WHOOP cycle.' It identifies both the verb (get) and the resource (sleep associated with a cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like whoop_get_cycle or whoop_get_sleep by the explicit association with 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 implies usage (if you have a WHOOP cycle and need its sleep, use this tool) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like whoop_get_sleep or whoop_list_sleeps. It only adds a prerequisite (requires read:sleep scope) without exclusionary guidance.

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