Classify ROOT CYCLEs against known patterns

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

With no annotations, the description discloses return values (patternId, confidence, fixHint) and pre-translated next steps. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only classification tool this is adequate.

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 efficiently structured in two paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose and antipattern list. Some embellishments like 'killer tool' are non-essential but do not detract significantly.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure and lists all antipatterns. It also mentions pipeline usage. For a tool with 2 parameters, this covers essential context.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions (path, maxResults). The tool description adds context about the output and catalog but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the verb 'Match' and the resource 'ROOT CYCLEs' against a catalog of 8 known antipatterns, listing them explicitly. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'findCycles' or 'analyzeAllocations'.

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 strong pipeline guidance, instructing to follow 'suggestedNextCalls' after using this tool. It implicitly indicates this tool is for classification after cycle discovery, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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