enoch_research_run_cycle

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation allowed) and destructiveHint=false, but the description provides no behavioral details beyond the dry_run default. It doesn't disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what constitutes a 'cycle'. No contradiction with 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 very concise with one sentence and a default note. It is front-loaded, but could be slightly expanded to include essential context without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the cycle does, what it returns, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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. It mentions dry_run defaults to true but fails to explain what dry_run means or clarify the other parameters (requested_by, refresh_worker). This is insufficient for a 3-param tool.

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 runs one bounded research autopilot cycle, specifying the verb (run) and resource (research autopilot cycle). It provides a specific scope ('bounded'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like enoch_research_quality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions a default parameter value (dry_run=True), which hints at testing usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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