list_cycle_work_items

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: returns paginated envelope with results, total_count, next_cursor, prev_cursor. No contradictions.

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?

Structured with Args and Returns, each parameter explained in one line. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for 8 parameters.

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 output schema exists, return values are explained via 'Returns' section. Covers all parameters, pagination, filtering, and dependencies like project_id and cycle_id. Fully adequate.

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 13%, but the description explains all 8 parameters in detail, including PQL examples and pagination semantics, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List work items in a cycle with optional PQL filtering', specifying the verb (list), resource (work items in a cycle), and distinguishing from siblings like list_work_items which may not be cycle-specific.

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?

Provides guidance on optional parameters like pql, order_by, pagination, and hints at using get_pql_reference for complex queries. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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