run_for_cycles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains what happens (advances emulator by a number of cycles) and what is returned (cycles consumed and total count). This is sufficient for a simple step tool, though it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., stopping on error or breakpoints) or permission needs.

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. The second sentence adds valuable return-value context without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema (which likely details return values), the description provides enough context: it states the action and explains why the return value is useful. It omits edge cases (e.g., behavior when machine is not running) but overall is adequate for its simplicity.

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 provides only names and types (cycles: integer, session_id: string) with no descriptions. The description explains that `cycles` is in 'BBC cycles', adding unit context, but does not elaborate on valid ranges or behavior. session_id is left entirely to inference from its name. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 tool's function: 'Advance the emulator by `cycles` BBC cycles.' This is a specific action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from siblings like run_basic or run_until_prompt. The addition of the return-value benefit (tracking session progress) further clarifies its unique role.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting it avoids a separate `read_registers` round trip, which is useful for session progress tracking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of run_until_text') or state exclusions. The guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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