list_cycles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not specify whether it returns active/completed cycles, sorting, pagination, or any permissions required. The output schema is present but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally informative, so it does not fully earn its place as a helpful specification beyond the tool name itself.

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?

The tool has an output schema and one parameter, so complexity is low. But the description lacks any contextual details about cycle scope, behavior, or relationship to other tools. Given the sibling set includes many list tools, more context is needed to disambiguate usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'de um projeto' which maps to project_id, but gives no detail on how to obtain the ID or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name 'Project Id' in 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 states 'Lista cycles de um projeto' (List cycles of a project), clearly identifying the action (listing) and resource (cycles) with a project scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or list_states, though it lacks explicit mention of any filtering or scope nuances that would make it a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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