cycle_statuses_list

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

No annotations provided. The description states 'List all cycle statuses', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements or performance considerations.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the tag line 'Tag: Cycle Statuses' adds little value and could be considered redundant. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the output format or any filtering capabilities, which would be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. According to the guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'List all cycle statuses', which specifies the verb and resource. The tool name and description together distinguish it from sibling list tools like bug_statuses_list or test_case_statuses_list, though additional context on what cycle statuses are would help.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bug_statuses_list or test_case_statuses_list. The description does not provide any context about when listing cycle statuses is appropriate.

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