Cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool starts or continues a stateful cycle, but it does not disclose side effects, state transitions, permissions, error behavior, or what is returned; the phase list is workflow context rather than behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the phase sequence. It is efficient, though the phrase 'explicit phase instructions' is somewhat ambiguous given the schema has no phase parameter.

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?

This is a complex stateful workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry more of the explanatory load. It names the phases but omits how phase instructions are supplied, how continuation differs from starting new, and what the caller should expect after invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and its phrase 'explicit phase instructions' is not mapped to any actual parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: start or continue an M7 cycle, and it names the seven-phase workflow. It is clear about the tool's overall role, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as mcp_m7_task_graph or mcp_m7_impact.

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?

It gives a contextual use case: structured task development through all seven phases. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or prerequisites for starting versus continuing a cycle.

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