detect_cycles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'detect', but doesn't explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether it returns a list vs. a boolean. No mention of performance, error conditions, or impact on the system. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, but it could have added one clause about output or usage without becoming verbose.

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?

With no annotations, output schema, or parameter details, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of cycles, graph structure), any side effects (though likely read-only, it's not stated), and performance considerations. For a simple tool this might be acceptable, but the lack of any return-type or behavioral note leaves significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip the schema is empty)Skip the description need not describe parameters. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't mislead or omit anything related to 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 identifies the tool's function: finding dependency cycles between symbols and files. The verb 'find' is specific, and the resource 'dependency cycles between symbols and files' distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_impact and check_boundaries, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_impact or check_boundaries. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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