list_cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies date-range scoping, explains the relationship to update/delete operations, and instructs the agent to infer defaults rather than ask the user.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sibling differentiation, usage condition, and default-inference instruction each earn their place without redundant filler. It is structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, a safe read-only annotation profile, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly. It also covers the relevant edge case of ambiguous update/delete matches, making it contextually complete.

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 100%, with both start_date and end_date already documented including format and defaults. The description mostly repeats these defaults in the INFER block. It adds the 'do not ask' operational instruction, but that is not new parameter semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's logged period records within a date range.' It also explicitly differentiates this tool from update_cycle and delete_cycle, so an agent can tell exactly what list_cycle is for relative to its siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when the user asks about cycle history, or to get an id after an ambiguous update/delete match. It also explicitly says the tool is no longer required before update_cycle/delete_cycle because those resolve records by date, which prevents unnecessary calls.

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