Zephyr: Get Test Cycle Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description only restates the read operation, adding no extra behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and includes useful examples. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Toolset:' and 'Parameters:' could be omitted), but overall concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description adequately explains the result (links of three types) and provides examples. An output schema exists to document return format, so no further detail 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 covers the single parameter with description and pattern (100% coverage). Description repeats the parameter name and type but does not add additional meaning or context 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 'Get all links (issues, web links, and test plans) associated with a test cycle'. The action is 'get', resource is 'test cycle links', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like zephyr_get_test_cycle or zephyr_get_test_case_links.

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 examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zephyr_get_test_cycle or zephyr_get_test_case_links. The context is implied by the tool's purpose, but no when-not or alternative references are given.

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