WHOOP Cycles

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the required 'read:cycles' OAuth scope. It also mentions pagination support, giving the agent a sense of the tool's interaction pattern without contradicting the 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds useful information: what it lists, what filtering/pagination it supports, and the required scope. No filler or redundancy exists.

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?

For a read-only list tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and 89% schema description coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the resource, filtering, pagination, and auth. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to whoop_get_cycle for single-cycle lookups, but that gap is minor given the schema and annotations.

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 high (89%), and parameter descriptions already document date-time format, limit bounds, pagination, and privacy mode. The tool description only restates the start/end filters and pagination, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('WHOOP physiological cycles'), and adds useful scope details about start/end filters and pagination. It is clear and accurate, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like whoop_list_recoveries or whoop_get_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 indicates what the tool supports ('start/end filters and WHOOP pagination'), so an agent can infer basic when-to-use context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling list/get tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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