list_issues_in_cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return data and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides usage instructions and return value summary.

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 has 5 parameters with no output schema. The description explains how to use the parameters together and lists return fields. It does not explain the limit parameter's pagination behavior or sorting, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual dependency between cycle_id or (team + cycle_number) and noting that cycle_id comes from list_cycles. This helps beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 states the action 'List issues in a Linear cycle' and specifies two ways to identify the cycle. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like list_cycles (which lists cycles) and search_issues (which is broader).

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 explicitly says to provide either cycle_id or both team and cycle_number, and references list_cycles as a source for cycle_id. It does not give explicit negative guidance or compare to search_issues, but the instruction is clear for when to use this tool.

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