Cycle quickstart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral fact that it returns a walkthrough and should be called first, but no additional context about side effects, privacy, or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The main functionality is front-loaded, and the trigger condition is stated directly. 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with only two optional enumerated parameters, the description covers the core purpose and usage moment. It does not explain the role of the 'client' parameter, which is a minor gap, but overall the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly in the intended scenario.

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 coverage is 50% because only privacy_mode has a description; client is undocumented. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter. The enumeration values for client are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation of client's purpose or effect.

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 ('Returns'), a clear resource ('personalized 3-step walkthrough'), and the target system ('wellness-cycle-coach'). It also gives the exact user phrasing that should trigger this tool, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cycle_demo or cycle_onboarding.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when the user asks how do I use this?', providing a clear usage trigger. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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