List Linear cycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that results can be scoped to a team, which is a behavioral nuance not in the annotation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default scope when no teamId is provided, or response format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the optional scoping behavior without wasting words.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the main action and the team filter, and the limit parameter’s default is visible in the schema. Minor gaps include the precise behavior without a teamId and the meaning of 'cycles' in Linear, but these are acceptable for a domain-savvy agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains teamId ('optionally scoped to one team') but does not explain 'limit' at all. The schema provides type and default for limit, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cycles'), and adds a scoping qualifier ('optionally scoped to one team') that differentiates this from other list tools. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it relates to siblings like linear_list_projects or linear_list_labels.

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 is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description only states the basic function and the optional team filter; it does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios favoring another sibling tool.

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