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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: a hard result cap ('at most 100 sprints') and a synonym clarification that explains how user language maps to the resource. No contradiction or hidden behavior is apparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: usage routing, the cap, and the synonym note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately routes to the alternative. No waste or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, list-style tool with annotations already covering destructive/read safety, the description covers everything needed: what it lists, scope, result limit, synonym handling, and how it differs from get_active_sprint. No output schema exists, so return structure is not expected here.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description must explain. The rubric baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately spends no space on params.

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 a specific verb and resource ('list sprints'), explicitly covers the full scope (past, planned, active, archived), and distinguishes itself from get_active_sprint by naming the sibling. The synonym clarification (focus, sprint, cycle, iteration, week) further disambiguates the object being listed.

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 gives an explicit 'use this when' (general sprint queries) and an explicit alternative ('For just the running one, prefer get_active_sprint'). This is ideal routing guidance, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool over a sibling.

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