list_cycle_work_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('Paginated envelope with results, total_count, next_cursor, prev_cursor') and optional filtering, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to scan. Every line provides functional information and there is no filler. Though slightly long, the density is appropriate for a tool with 8 parameters and pagination details.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, pagination, and optional PQL filtering, the description covers all parameters and clearly states the return envelope. The presence of an output schema and the reference to get_pql_reference for complex queries adds completeness. It lacks only explicit edge-case guidance, but overall it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 only 13%, but the description compensates by describing all 8 parameters in the Args section, including types, defaults, and formatting rules (e.g., order_by prefix `-` for descending, per_page range 1-100, cursor from next_cursor). While expand and fields are somewhat vague ('related fields', 'sparse fieldset'), the extra context significantly aids understanding beyond the bare 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 starts with 'List work items in a cycle with optional PQL filtering,' which names the specific verb, resource, and scope. The tool name and description clearly distinguish it from siblings like list_work_items and list_module_work_items by explicitly scoping to a cycle.

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 gives clear context: use this to list work items within a specific cycle, with optional PQL filtering, and 'Omit to list all items in the cycle' clarifies the default behavior. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to use it, especially given the params require project_id and cycle_id.

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