list_cycle_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all issues') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), describe pagination or limits for 'all issues', mention authentication requirements, indicate rate limits, or explain the return format (e.g., list structure, error handling). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core action ('Get all issues') and context ('for a specific cycle'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with every word earning its place.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. mutating), return format, error conditions, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output details, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for reliable 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 100%, with both parameters (cycle_id and project_id) clearly documented in the schema as UUID identifiers. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'cycle_id' specifies the cycle and 'project_id' specifies the containing project, which is already covered by the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all issues for a specific cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_cycles' (which lists cycles) and 'list_module_issues' (which lists issues for modules), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier' (which retrieves a single issue). The description is specific but could be more precise about differentiation from similar retrieval tools.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid cycle_id and project_id), contrast with sibling tools like 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier' (for single issues) or 'list_module_issues' (for module-specific issues), or specify use cases (e.g., bulk retrieval vs. filtered searches). Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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