get_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' and lists arguments, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling, ownership constraints, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the function name.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line purpose and a simple args list. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 simple get operation, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description still feels incomplete because it does not provide context on when to use this tool or what prerequisites exist.

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 description adds minimal value over the schema by stating that project_id and cycle_id are UUID identifiers, which clarifies the expected format but does not explain their relationship or how to obtain them. Given 0% schema coverage, this basic clarification is helpful but insufficient to fully compensate.

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 the resource 'details of a specific cycle', distinguishing it from list_cycles and other cycle operations. It is concise and specific, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cycles or list_cycle_issues. However, the phrase 'specific cycle' implies it is for fetching a single cycle, so usage context is weakly implied but not detailed.

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