get-recovery-for-cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds valuable context by specifying the data types returned (recovery score, HRV, resting heart rate), which enhances understanding beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key data points. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the data returned, but could benefit from mentioning error cases or response format to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100%, with the parameter 'cycleId' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the cycle to retrieve recovery data for'. The description does not add further details about parameter meaning or usage, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 recovery data'), resource ('for a specific cycle from WHOOP'), and scope ('including recovery score, HRV, and resting heart rate'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-recent-cycles' (list vs. specific) and 'get-sleep-for-cycle' (recovery vs. sleep data).

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 for retrieving recovery metrics for a known cycle ID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-recent-cycles' for listing cycles first. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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