cycles_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any auth/rate limit info. 'List' implies a read operation, but it's not explicit, and the description adds no behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information (tag and parameter requirement), with no waste.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and the mandatory filter condition. It lacks details about return format, but that is often implicit for list endpoints. Overall, adequate for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates that at least one is required, adding no new meaning. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists cycles and specifies the filtering parameters (projectId or folderId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cycles_create, cycles_delete, cycles_get, etc., by explicitly describing its list-and-filter behavior.

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 includes a critical usage guideline: 'At least one query parameter is required: projectId or folderId.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (when filtering by project or folder). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the requirement is clear.

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