get-sleep-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, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details, but it does not contradict 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, which could help the agent use it more effectively in context.

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 input schema as 'The ID of the cycle to retrieve sleep data for'. The description adds no extra meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, adhering to the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'sleep data for a specific cycle from WHOOP', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get-sleep-by-id', which likely serves a similar purpose with a different identifier, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools 'get-recent-cycles', 'get-recovery-for-cycle', or 'get-sleep-by-id'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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