export_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it returns a download link (not file bytes) and the response format. It adds details on parameter semantics. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but overall transparency is good.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the main purpose, then provides parameter details and return value in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: parameter flexibility, folder export option, and the nature of the return value. It could mention error handling or what the URL should be used for, but overall it is fairly complete for a straightforward export tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains that project/version accept various types and -1 for Unscheduled, and folder_id is optional for partial export. cycle_id is not elaborated, but the description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Get a download link for a cycle's executions as a CSV export.' It specifies the resource (cycle's executions) and action (download link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cycle or list_executions.

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 clear usage context: it explains parameter types ('project/version accept keys/names or ids'), preference for ids, and the optional folder_id. It also clarifies what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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