list_cycle_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or potential pagination/limitations. The description discloses the basic behavior but leaves some 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema handles return value details. It lacks explicit safety or usage exclusions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining both parameters clearly: project_id as the UUID of the containing project and cycle_id as the UUID of the cycle. This adds valuable meaning beyond 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 description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all issues for a specific cycle.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_issues or get_cycle by explicitly targeting issues within 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need issues for a cycle) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on how it compares to similar tools like list_project_issues.

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