cycle_decision_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds behavioral insights like 'reasoning alone is never proof' and lists allowed intents. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what happens upon acceptance/rejection.

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 concise (two sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the list of intents could be formatted more clearly, and some sentences are packed with information.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level purpose but lacks parameter details, return value, and error states.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameter. It mentions allowed intents but does not map them to the 'intent' parameter or explain other parameters like runId, loop, rationale, etc.

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 that this is a supervisor decision hook for approving transition packets, with specific allowed intents. It uses specific verbs ('proposes', 'accepted') and distinguishes itself from other tools by being the only one where supervisor acceptance is required.

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 (for supervisor decisions) and explicitly states that completion/stop-style intents are refused, indicating when not to use. It does not name alternative tools but provides clear context.

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