archy_cycles

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 describes the algorithm and output but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, or mention destructive actions rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Provides some transparency but not complete.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-loading purpose and adding algorithmic detail. Could include more parameter info without becoming verbose, so slightly below perfect.

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 three parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required 'path' parameter and the 'internal_only' boolean. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but parameter gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'min_size' via the algorithm description, but does not explain 'path' or 'internal_only'. Significant gap in parameter documentation.

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 finds import cycles using Tarjan SCCs, specifies a minimum size filter, mentions self-loops, and indicates output ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archy_graph or archy_high_risk_modules.

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 provides clear context on when to use (finding cycles in Python projects) but does not mention when not to use or alternatives. Given the sibling list, it's the only cycle-finding tool, so the context is sufficient.

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