tcai_cycle

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the processing pipeline and halt behavior, but does not state side effects (e.g., updates to memory/self-model), prerequisites, or whether repeated calls accumulate state. It implies state changes via the pipeline but not explicitly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and pipeline, followed by the key stop-condition behavior. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks return-value guidance, state-change expectations, and definitions for several parameters. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly beyond the basic run-and-halt pattern.

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 high (~77%) and the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning around stopWhenSatisfied and the 'sustained satisfactory' halt regime, but doesn't add much for the remaining parameters like threat, controllability, predictionError, and predictionConfidence.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Run' with resource 'ACM cycles' and details the pipeline from SNN signals to second-order loop, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcai_second_order or snn_step. It states what the tool does at the right level of specificity.

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?

Description gives clear context: run one or more ACM cycles, with explicit guidance on setting stopWhenSatisfied for early halt. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear enough for most cases.

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