cerebro_cycles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool finds cycles and returns members, which suggests a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't disclose potential performance impact or scope (e.g., entire codebase).

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence explains the action and purpose, second clarifies the output. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return format. However, the description is brief and could benefit from specifying what constitutes a cycle or how results are structured, but it's adequate given the schema.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, indicating no issues.

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 circular import groups, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cycles, while others handle calls, dead symbols, etc.

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 implies usage for identifying architecture smells ('worth breaking'), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison is given.

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