icp_cycles_guide

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

The term 'guidance' implies an informational, read-only interaction without side effects, but the description does not disclose what the guidance includes, whether it's a static document, or any limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but remains 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and topic. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter schema, the description should do more heavy lifting. 'Guidance on cycles management' is vague about what content will be returned and how the agent should use it, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, so the schema provides no information. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4; the description correctly does not introduce any parameter-related expectations.

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 clear verb+resource pattern ('Get guidance on cycles management'), identifying the tool's purpose as providing instructional content about cycle management. It distinguishes from sibling tools like icp_cycles_balance (balance check) and icp_to_cycles (conversion), but does not specify the scope or format of the guidance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the topic.

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