Arroyo — Cycle of Becoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the tool returns, how it processes inputs, or any side effects. Since annotations cover safety, the description contributes little.

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 extremely short, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks essential information and does not use the space effectively. The example request body is not useful and potentially confusing.

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 no output schema, 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-documented. The agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke the tool or what to expect from the response.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only offers a misleading example request body with '...chart' which does not match any parameter in the schema. No parameter details are provided, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 11 parameters.

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 states 'Arroyo's evolutionary cycle', which indicates a specific system (Arroyo) and a conceptual area (evolutionary cycle), but lacks a verb to clarify whether it calculates, interprets, or generates content. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'modern_rudhyar_cycles_of_becoming', which shares a similar naming pattern.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate.

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