Cycle capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the content (phases, connectors, metrics, privacy modes) but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response size, or latency. Since safety is covered by annotations and the description provides some semantic context, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists all content categories without filler. Every word earns its place, and the primary action 'Lists' is immediately clear.

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 capabilities listing with one optional parameter, the description is adequately complete. It names the returned categories and implies no side effects. While no output schema exists, the tool's nature is straightforward; the description does not need to detail return formatting. Slight deduction for not mentioning potential variations based on privacy_mode, but the schema covers that.

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%: the only parameter 'privacy_mode' has a detailed description including enum values and effects. The description mentions 'privacy modes' but adds no syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents 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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and enumerates exact resource categories (supported phases, upstream connectors, available metrics, privacy modes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cycle_agent_manifest or cycle_connection_status, which focus on different facets. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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. With 16 sibling tools, the absence of explicit routing criteria (e.g., 'Use this to discover available options before calling specific tools') leaves the agent to infer usage. The description states what it lists but not when to invoke it.

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