list_cycles

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 only states the action without mentioning read-only status, pagination, ordering, or potential limitations. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit disclosure about side effects or data scope.

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 one clear sentence followed by a simple Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or redundant details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks essential context such as when to use it, behavioral expectations, and any filters or ordering. With no annotations, the minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and prerequisites.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that project_id is a UUID identifier. However, the coverage is 0% per context signals, and the description does not provide additional context like how to obtain the project_id or any constraints. It is marginally helpful but not substantial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all cycles') with a clear scope ('for a specific project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cycle, list_cycle_issues, and list_states by clearly indicating it lists cycles for a project, not a single cycle or other entities.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_cycle for a single cycle or list_cycle_issues for issues within a cycle. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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