list_cycles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a list operation, it is likely safe, but the description fails to explicitly convey this, leaving the agent uninformed about safety or permissions.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parameter explanation. It front-loads the core function. While it could include more details without being verbose, the current structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which may describe return values), the description lacks completeness. It fails to cover pagination (after, first) and workspace parameter, and does not hint at the output structure. Significant gaps remain for effective autonomous use.

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 must compensate. It only explains team_id (its purpose and that omitting it lists across all teams), but neglects the other three parameters (after, first, workspace). These are critical for pagination and additional scoping, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 lists cycles with an optional team scope. The verb 'List' and resource 'cycles' are specific, and the optional team scoping distinguishes this from a generic list. However, it does not explain what a cycle is, which could be ambiguous for unfamiliar agents.

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 guidance on when to use the team_id parameter (omit to list all cycles) but offers no alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Among siblings, there is no other cycle listing tool, so explicit differentiation is not critical, but usage context is minimal.

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