list_cycles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only operation via 'List' and indicates the return fields, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, or handling of null project_id.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately conveys the resource and output. No unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but the description does not clarify the behavior when project_id is null or whether all cycles are returned, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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?

The schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description references 'a project's cycles', which implies project_id identifies the project, but does not explain the parameter's format, whether it is required, or what happens if null is provided. The description only minimally compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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), the resource (a project's cycles), and clarifies that cycles are sprints and that the response includes UUIDs and dates. This distinguishes it from get_cycle which retrieves a single 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 provides clear context: this tool lists cycles for a project. It does not mention alternatives like get_cycle for a single cycle, but the usage is unambiguous given the tool name and description. No exclusion criteria are given.

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