list_cycles

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

Describes return format (map keyed by versionId, cycle entries keyed by cycleId, Ad hoc cycle -1). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the action 'List' implies non-destructive behavior. Missing details on auth or rate limits, but acceptable for a list operation.

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 paragraphs: first sentence states purpose, second details parameters. Efficient and front-loaded. No redundant information.

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?

Covers core functionality and return structure. However, lacks details on pagination (offset) and the 'expand' parameter. For a list tool, these are relevant for using the tool correctly. Without an output schema, description should cover more behavioral context.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains the two required parameters (project, version) well, including accepted types and preference for IDs. However, it does not explain the optional 'offset' and 'expand' parameters, leaving them undocumented.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists test cycles given a project and version. The verb 'List' and resource 'test cycles' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_cycle_folders or list_executions, though the resource is distinct.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on parameter values: project accepts key/name/numericId, version accepts name/id/-1, and advises preferring numeric IDs to skip lookups. Does not address when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_executions.

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