archy_cycles

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the algorithm (Tarjan's SCC) and sorting order (largest-first), which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects (though likely none), authentication needs, or rate limits. With zero annotations, the description should carry the full burden but only partially does.

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 conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and does not include extraneous information, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (finding cycles with multiple parameters and an output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'import cycles' are, how the parameters interact, or what the output contains, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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% for the three parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'internal_only' or clarify 'path' and 'min_size'. For a tool with no schema descriptions, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 that the tool finds import cycles using Tarjan's SCC algorithm, with specific parameters for minimum size and self-loops. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archy_graph or archy_high_risk_modules by focusing on cycles.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archy_graph or archy_impact. It only describes what it does, not the context or conditions for its use.

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