research_cycle_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by naming the categories of returned data, but it discloses no edge-case behavior, error conditions, or whether results are scoped to a specific cycle.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant filler. It is concise, though the domain jargon like 'durable research-cycle artifacts' and 'gate settlements' reduces clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits task_id semantics, output structure, and how this status tool relates to the many sibling tools. The broad list of return categories is helpful but not sufficient for confident 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?

The schema has one required task_id parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions task_id at all. It does not explain what task_id identifies, how it relates to the research cycle, or what values are meaningful, leaving the agent to guess.

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 names a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource: durable research-cycle artifacts, gate settlements, reviews, and linked finite Codex tasks. This is more informative than a generic status description, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling research/rva tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as research_knowledge_status, rva_review_result, or research_record_settlement_decision. The read-only annotations imply a status-checking use case, but the description itself provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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