cycle_decision_request

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

The description explains that the tool is a decision hook where only supervisor-accepted transitions count as progress, and that completion/stop intents are refused. While this gives some behavioral insight, it omits details on success/failure responses, side effects, or state changes.

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 with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and constraints. However, it could be better structured by grouping related information (e.g., listing parameters with brief explanations).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain crucial parameters like runId, rationale, or hypothesisId, and does not describe return values or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for the 'intent' parameter by listing allowed values. The other five parameters (runId, loop, newEpoch, rationale, hypothesisId) are left completely unexplained, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as a supervisor decision hook for transition intents, listing allowed intents and explicitly stating what is refused. However, it does not directly differentiate from sibling tools like promotion_request or loop_next.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (worker proposing a transition requiring supervisor approval) and what intents are refused. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or references to alternative tools.

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