changes_by_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and input, omitting details like what constitutes a change (e.g., transitions), potential errors for invalid signals or cycle ranges, and whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for a mutation-free but potentially costly operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 has 6 parameters, a complex domain (signals, clocks), and many siblings, the description is too terse. It lacks information about the output format (despite an output schema, which complements clarity), error behavior, and performance considerations. The description does not fully equip an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'changes between two clock cycle indices'. Consequently, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'return', the resource 'one signal's changes', and the scope 'between two clock cycle indices'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'changes' (which may not be cycle-specific) and 'changes_many' (which handles multiple signals).

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 over alternatives such as 'changes', 'changes_many', or 'edges'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clock definition) or suitability for specific use cases.

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