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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds scope ('of this workspace') and ordering ('number order'), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether archived sprints are included, which would be helpful for a list operation with no output 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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the operation, scope, and ordering. Every word contributes value with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 operation, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not specify what fields each sprint object contains, whether the list is paginated, or if any filtering options exist. Given the absence of an output schema, these details would help an agent fully anticipate the response, but the core functionality is clear.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information.

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 action (List) and the resource (sprints of this workspace), and adds ordering (number order). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_cycle or update_cycle, which are mutations.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a read-only list operation. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context of sibling tools makes it clear that this is the canonical way to retrieve all sprints. There are no other list_* tools for cycles, so no ambiguity.

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