Cycle agent manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the content inventory of the returned manifest, which is useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as filtering by client, output shape, or any side effects beyond the annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing the manifest's contents. Every item in the list adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool, the description covers the main facets of what is returned. The absence of an output schema makes the content list especially valuable, and the annotations cover safety. It could mention how the client parameter affects the manifest, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only 50%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The client parameter has no description beyond its enum values, and privacy_mode's schema description is not reinforced or expanded by the tool description. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, parameter meaning is under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource (wellness-cycle-coach agent manifest), then enumerates its contents: tool list, supported clients, env vars, recommended first calls, capabilities, privacy posture, and community links. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling cycle_capabilities, which is also about capabilities.

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 purpose implies usage: call this tool when you need the agent manifest or recommended first calls. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like cycle_capabilities or cycle_quickstart, and no exclusions are stated. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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