list_cycles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists cycles and can filter by team, which is basic behavior. However, it does not explain pagination (cursor, limit) or what happens when no cycles exist. The output schema may cover return values, but pagination details are missing.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and conveys the core function immediately.

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 the tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main purpose and one filter, but lacks pagination details. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value descriptions, but pagination guidance is still needed.

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 explains the team_id parameter ('filtered by a team key or UUID'), but does not explain limit or cursor parameters, which are essential for pagination. This leaves two parameters undocumented.

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 action ('List') and resource ('workspace cycles'), and mentions optional filtering by team. It is distinct from sibling tools like archive_cycle or create_cycle.

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 listing cycles with optional team filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. other list tools like list_cycle_issues. However, the name is self-explanatory.

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