Cycle agent manifest

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states that it 'returns' the manifest (implying read-only), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, caching, authentication requirements, or side effects. The list of contents provides some transparency but insufficient for a tool with no 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?

Single sentence listing many items in a compact way. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it maintains conciseness without extraneous words. The information is front-loaded.

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 covers the return values well by enumerating the categories included. However, it lacks explanation of the only input parameter and does not mention if the manifest is static or dynamic. The low complexity helps, but with parameter semantics missing, completeness is slightly reduced.

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% and the description does not mention the optional 'client' parameter at all. The parameter is important for possibly filtering the manifest by client type (enum values: claude, codex, etc.), but agents cannot infer its purpose or usage from the description.

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?

Clearly states it returns the agent manifest with a specific list of contents (tool list, supported clients, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings as other family tools have different purposes (e.g., cycle_capabilities, cycle_profile_get).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lists contents but does not mention that it might be the first tool to call for agent setup, nor does it provide any context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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