Cycle quickstart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a walkthrough but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key action and return type. No unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema, but for a simple quickstart tool, the description adequately explains what it does. It could elaborate on the walkthrough content or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for its narrow purpose.

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%, yet the description does not mention the single optional 'client' parameter or explain its enum values. The schema itself is clear, but the description adds no additional context, which is insufficient for a tool with uncovered 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 clearly states the tool returns a personalized 3-step walkthrough for using the coach, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on specific features like cycle_profile_get or cycle_full_report.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when the user asks "how do I use this?"' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or recommend alternatives, but given the tool's purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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