Get WHOOP recovery for cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful domain fact — recovery is computed from the preceding sleep — but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or what happens when a cycle has no associated recovery. For a getter with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource and its derivation. It earns its place, though the brevity leaves capability gaps that a slightly longer description could cover.

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 not be explained, and the single required parameter is well documented. What is missing is edge-case behavior (e.g. cycles without recovery) and any routing versus get_recovery, leaving it merely adequate for a simple read tool.

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 100% and the cycle_id description already explains its format and provenance ('e.g. from get_cycles or a recovery record'). The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource — the recovery score computed for a given cycle — and adds the causal detail that it derives from the preceding sleep. An agent can tell it fetches recovery tied to one cycle. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_recovery or get_sleep_for_cycle, leaving the reader to infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_recovery (all recoveries) or get_cycles. The only implicit signal is that a cycle_id is required, which the schema already states. Nothing routes the agent between this and its siblings.

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