list_cycle_work_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that, except the dependency on list_cycles for obtaining cycle_id. It does not describe return format, pagination, or other execution behavior, leaving the description to rely on annotations for the read-only nature.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all work items in a specific cycle') and then adds the essential prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the required inputs, and the needed prior step. It does not explain the 'params' parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of project_id and cycle_id, and explicitly tells how to obtain cycle_id via list_cycles. However, the optional 'params' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving some semantic ambiguity. Overall, it adds meaningful context for the core required parameters.

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 tool's function: 'List all work items in a specific cycle.' This specifies the action (list), the resource (work items), and the scope (specific cycle), distinguishing it from the sibling tool list_work_items which likely lists all work items across contexts. The mention of required IDs further clarifies its purpose.

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 actionable guidance by stating the required parameters and instructing to 'call list_cycles first to get the cycle_id.' This gives a clear workflow and prerequisite, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The sibling list_work_items is an implied alternative but not named.

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