linear_getCycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, default limit, team scope). With annotations covering key traits, a score of 3 reflects minimal added value.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse, missing important scope information (e.g., that teamId filters the list). Still, it contains no filler.

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 has an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify the behavior when teamId is omitted (e.g., whether it returns cycles from all teams). The existence of many sibling cycle tools raises the need for clearer distinction.

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%: both parameters ('limit' and 'teamId') are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Get a list of all cycles' clearly indicates a list operation on cycles. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'linear_getCycleById' or 'linear_getActiveCycle', and it omits that the list can be filtered by team via the teamId parameter.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linear_getCycleById' (single cycle) or 'linear_getActiveCycle' (active cycle). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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