Get linked test cycles from a test plan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it returns paginated results (though schema hints at pagination), or any side effects. The description is too terse to inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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 sentence, which is concise but somewhat underspecified. It could be slightly longer to include useful context without being verbose. It does not waste words, but also does not fully utilize the space.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description should explain the return value (e.g., list of cycle objects) and how parameters like 'fields' affect results. It provides none of this, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone, which is incomplete.

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 parameters clearly (id, sort, fields, startAt, maxResults). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'test cycles linked to a test plan', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get-qmetry-test-cycle or get-test-cycle-test-plans, which could cause confusion.

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 (e.g., get-qmetry-test-cycle for a specific cycle, or link-test-cycles-to-test-plan for linking). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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