list_cycles

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: results are ordered earliest-first and the default window is the active and next cycle.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with ordering and default scope front-loaded ahead of the cross-reference. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. What remains is ordering and default scope, both stated; only a brief note on pagination or team-scoping behavior is absent, which is minor.

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 both the team key and the when enum are fully documented in the schema; the description restates the default value ('active and next cycle') without adding format or syntax detail. The reference to a 'cycle number' describes a list_issues parameter rather than this tool's own inputs, so there is no real gain over the 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 fragment 'Cycles, earliest first' names the resource and its ordering, and the follow-up sentence clarifies scope by noting the default of active-plus-next cycles. The verb is only implied (list), but the content is specific enough to separate it from list_issues, list_teams, and other siblings.

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?

It states the default scope and explicitly routes the agent to list_issues with a cycle number plus team to see a cycle's tickets, which is a concrete handoff condition. It does not state when-not to use this tool or contrast it with other listing tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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