list_cycles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'List' implies a safe, read-only operation, and the description further discloses what kind of information is returned (supported cycles, file-name conventions, weight rules). It lacks explicit notes on return format or server-specific limitations, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds value: the resource, the scope ('this server supports'), and the specific output categories.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke it confidently. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape or how the listed cycles map to identifiers used elsewhere, but it is complete enough for correct use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned data will contain, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 precise resource ('NHANES cycles this server supports'), and it enriches the purpose with the exact output content: file-name conventions and weight rules. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_files and search_variables.

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 intended use is implied by the description: call this when you need to know which cycles are available and their conventions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternative sibling tools, so guidance for tool selection is only implicit.

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