Create Sprint

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

The description clearly discloses that the tool creates a resource (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), returns specific fields, and sets a default state. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as mentioning that start_date/end_date are optional ISO 8601 strings and that the returned id can be used for task scheduling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, each packing essential information without redundancy. The main action and return are front-loaded, and the post-creation usage tip is a natural extension.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It provides sufficient context for a straightforward creation tool with 5 parameters and full schema descriptions. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or permissions, but not critical for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description primarily reinforces schema info (name required, state default). It adds marginal value by explicitly stating 'Only name is required' and hinting at the purpose of the return value (for task scheduling), but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a sprint') and lists the returned fields (id, name, goal, state, dates). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_sprint and list_sprints by focusing solely on creation and hinting at downstream integration with create_task/update_task.

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 states 'Only name is required' and explains optional fields and defaults (state defaults to 'future'). It provides post-creation guidance on scheduling tasks via sprint_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like update_sprint or list_sprints.

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