analyze_cycle_time

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that events are split into cutting vs non-cutting time and that air-time opportunities are identified. It does not mention edge cases or limitations, but none are critical given the strong annotation coverage.

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 one tight sentence with no filler and front-loads the primary action. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse given the parameter count and the need for usage differentiation.

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?

The output schema exists and the annotations cover side effects, so return values and safety do not need elaboration. However, the description omits when to prefer this tool over estimate_cycle_time and does not clarify the key threshold/rate parameters, leaving moderate ambiguity for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It loosely maps to 'events' and 'air-time opportunities', but it does not explain machineRapidRate, defaultToolChangeSeconds, or opportunityThresholdSeconds, nor their units, defaults, or roles.

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 ('Decompose') and names the exact resource ('supplied motion/events') and output ('cutting and non-cutting time', 'reviewable air-time opportunities'). It clearly distinguishes from generic simulation tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with likely siblings like estimate_cycle_time or analyze_toolpath_risk.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as estimate_cycle_time or analyze_toolpath_risk. It implies the input is a list of motion/events, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion statement.

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