list_whoop_cycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint — that start/end times require UTC offsets — but says nothing about what a cycle contains, pagination limits, or ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource scope leads before the time-format caveat. It is efficient, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic about which parameters it applies to.

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 paginated list tool with annotations covering safety, the description conveys the core resource and a key time constraint. However, with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, an agent still lacks the pagination mechanics and time-range format needed to call it confidently.

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 0%, so all four parameters (start, end, limit, next_token) are undocumented. The description compensates only partially by noting times need UTC offsets, leaving the format of start/end, the meaning of limit, and how next_token works entirely unexplained.

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 ('Page through') and resource ('physiological cycles and day strain'), which separates it from singular siblings like get_whoop_cycle and from the recovery/sleep/workout list tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so differentiation relies on the resource noun.

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 word 'Page through' implies iteration over a collection and hints at the next_token workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative get_whoop_cycle for single fetches. Usage is only implied.

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