list-cycle-issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all issues' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., archived issues included?). The description is minimal and leaves key operational questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the essential 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the issues are returned in, whether there are limitations on the listing, or how to handle potentially large result sets. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (project_id and cycle_id are self-explanatory from the schema descriptions). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('issues in a specific cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list-issues' or 'list-module-issues', which would require mentioning the specific cycle context as a distinguishing factor.

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. With multiple list-related sibling tools (list-issues, list-module-issues, list-sub-issues, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific cycle-focused listing is appropriate versus broader listing tools.

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