list_cycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about returning cycle IDs and the project scope, which is useful but does not disclose behaviors like pagination or whether the full cycle objects are returned. With annotations present, the description meets the baseline but adds limited extra transparency.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'List all cycles...' and no wasted words. Every clause adds value, making it an appropriately sized description for a simple list tool.

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 list operation with read-only annotations, the description covers the core elements: resource, scope, and the purpose of the output (cycle IDs). The optional params parameter is not explained, and there is no mention of pagination, but given the tool's low complexity and the existing annotations, the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies project_id as the scope ('in a project') but leaves the optional 'params' object (anyOf object/null) entirely unexplained. With a low-coverage schema, this gap is significant, and the description does not fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('cycles (sprints)') and scope ('in a project'), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists whole projects) and list_cycle_work_items (which lists work items, not cycles). The added note about returning cycle IDs for managing cycle work items 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 phrase 'needed for managing cycle work items' implies a use case but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieve_cycle (for a single cycle) or list_cycle_work_items (for work items within a cycle). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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