Cycle privacy audit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by stating that nothing is stored locally and nothing is sent out. This clarifies the tool's privacy guarantees and does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the three return categories without repetition or filler. Every phrase adds meaning.

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 tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return categories, and safety profile. It lacks an explicit output structure, but no output schema exists and the described categories are likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the privacy_mode parameter includes a clear description of summary vs. structured/raw behavior, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description itself does not discuss the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns privacy-audit information: what is stored locally (none), what is sent out (none), and agent rules for cycle data. It is specific about the resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cycle_data_inventory.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description — privacy and data-handling questions about wellness-cycle-coach. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the many sibling cycle_* tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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