get_task_group_cycle_times

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it mentions that include_steps=true triggers additional API calls and may be slow, which is a critical performance consideration. It also explains the return statistics. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short paragraph on output, and a focused paragraph on the include_steps parameter. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (per-template stats with avg/median/min/max and SLA adherence). It also addresses the performance impact of include_steps. However, it does not explain the days_back default or validate that it only works on completed task groups, leaving minor gaps.

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 explains include_steps in detail, mentions days_back implicitly via 'lookback window', and template_id via 'segmented by project template'. However, plan_id is not described at all, leaving one parameter without semantic guidance.

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 tool computes task group cycle times segmented by project template. It identifies the resource (task groups) and the action (compute cycle times) with specificity. Among the sibling tools, none directly perform cycle time analysis, so it distinguishes itself effectively.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to reveal slow workflows and bottleneck steps. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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