Zephyr: Get Test Cycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: default/max pagination limits, server-side limit enforcement, potential result truncation, and the instruction to check maxResults in the response. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections and helpful examples, but it duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions almost verbatim and includes several repetitive 'Expected Output' lines. It earns some value from examples, but is longer than necessary.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description covers the remaining practical needs: all filters, pagination behavior, truncation warning, and six usage examples. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not explicitly discuss combining multiple filters.

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 schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description mostly repeats that text and adds examples, but it does not provide much new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already cover. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Get details of Test Cycles in Zephyr.' The plural 'Test Cycles' signals this is a listing operation and distinguishes it from the singular sibling zephyr_get_test_cycle, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling relationship.

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 examples show practical scenarios for using the tool with different filters, which implies when it is appropriate to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool such as zephyr_get_test_cycle for a single cycle or zephyr_get_test_cycle_links for links.

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