get_cycle

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions parameter behavior and special value -1, but omits return structure (what 'details' are), error handling, or idempotency. For a read operation, more context on safety and response is needed.

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 concise sentences with no filler. First sentence states core purpose, second adds critical special case. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple get tool given one required parameter, but lacks output structure, error scenarios, and explicit read-only guarantee. With no output schema or annotations, additional detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds significant value by explaining 'numeric id' and noting the special '-1' value for Ad hoc cycle, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Get') and resource ('a single test cycle's details') with specificity ('by its numeric id'). Includes a special case note about '-1' for Ad hoc cycle, distinguishing itself from siblings like list_cycles or update_cycle.

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?

Implies use when a specific cycle id is known, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., list_cycles for listing, or update_cycle for modifications). No when-not or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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