list_statement_cycles

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. While 'list' implies a read operation, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure (e.g., no side effects, auth requirements) is a gap given the absence of annotations.

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 concise sentence (13 words), which is efficient, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'aggregated card-input evidence' but this is vague. The description does not explain the output format, pagination, or how the aggregation works, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 should explain the parameters. It mentions 'card obligation' but does not describe 'target_obligation_id' or 'db_path'. The required parameter lacks explanation, and the optional parameter's purpose is unclear.

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 it lists statement cycles for a card obligation with aggregated card-input evidence. The verb 'list' and resource 'statement cycles' are explicit, and the additional context about aggregation helps distinguish it from siblings like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'list_obligations'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist but no comparative context.

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