Cycle data inventory

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. The description adds that the result is a reference catalog/taxonomy rather than user-specific data, but it does not describe response shape, ordering, or how privacy_mode affects the payload beyond the schema text.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase ('metric catalog', 'phase taxonomy', 'used by the coach') contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only inventory tool, the description conveys the essential output. Without an output schema it could name more of the returned structure, but the generous annotations and fully documented single parameter make this adequate for invocation.

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?

The only parameter, privacy_mode, is fully described in the schema with an enum and explanation of summary vs. structured/raw behavior (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 identifies distinct resources ('metric catalog and phase taxonomy'), so an agent knows exactly what data the tool provides. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like cycle_capabilities or cycle_full_report, but the catalog/taxonomy wording is specific enough to orient the agent.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many sibling cycle_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names; the agent must infer from the tool name and 'used by the coach' when this is the right choice.

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