Zephyr: Get Test Cycle

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds expected output wording ('The test cycle with its details') and concrete examples, but no deeper behavioral context such as not-found behavior or response shape. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter list and examples are logically organized. The repeated 'Expected Output: The test cycle with its details' after both examples is slightly redundant, but overall the structure is easy to scan and every section 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and two worked examples, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly. Nothing critical is missing given the simple complexity and the presence of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pairing the schema pattern with concrete examples ('1' and 'SA-R40') that make it clear how to supply either a numeric ID or a key, which is more immediately useful than the raw regex alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and a specific resource ('test cycle specified by id or key'), which unambiguously identifies what the tool does. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling zephyr_get_test_cycles by its singular scope.

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 by showing examples for both ID and key inputs, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the plural zephyr_get_test_cycles or other related tools. No alternative is named and 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.