get-cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is required, potential error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get detailed 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?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what 'detailed information' includes or mention authentication requirements. The completeness is borderline given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 fully documents both parameters (project_id and cycle_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-cycles' or 'list-cycle-issues', which would require mentioning this retrieves a single cycle by ID rather than listing multiple cycles.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-cycles' for listing multiple cycles or 'list-cycle-issues' for getting cycle-related issues, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing both project_id and cycle_id to retrieve a specific cycle.

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