Get Linked Test Cycles

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

No annotations provided; description is minimal and does not disclose safety, authentication needs, or response format. The agent cannot infer whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It is efficient, though slightly underspecified for the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context such as pagination behavior, response structure, and the relationship between required parameters. The schema partially compensates, but overall completeness is low.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., how to derive 'id' and 'tcVersionNo'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action (Get) and resource (test cycles linked to a test case). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-qmetry-test-cycle' (single cycle by ID) and 'search-qmetry-test-cycles' (search), but could be more explicit about the input context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search-qmetry-test-cycles' or 'get-qmetry-linked-test-cases'. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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