WHOOP Cycle Sleep

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 still adds the auth requirement (read:sleep scope) and a medical disclaimer, which is exactly the kind of context beyond annotations that earns credit.

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?

Three short sentences, scope and disclaimer front-loaded after the core purpose, with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against whoop_get_sleep, which matters given how many near-identical sleep/cycle readers exist.

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 75%, just under the high-coverage baseline, and the description adds nothing about any of the four parameters. Notably, the privacy_mode/raw escalation flow (explicit_user_intent) is left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the sleep associated with a WHOOP cycle'), which is more precise than a bare 'get sleep'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling whoop_get_sleep or explain what 'associated with a cycle' buys the agent over that tool.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite ('Requires read:sleep scope'), which is actionable context. But there is no when-to-use guidance relative to whoop_get_sleep, whoop_get_cycle, or whoop_get_cycle_recovery, so tool selection is left to inference.

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