Get Board Sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'all' scope for sprints, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior. With annotations covering read-only semantics, this modest addition is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 read-only list tool with one fully described parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. The output schema eliminates the need to detail return values, and the annotations cover safety, making the description complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter board_id with a description ('Board identifier'). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all sprints') with a specific scope ('associated with a Yandex Tracker board'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sprint_get, which targets a single sprint, and boards_list/board_get, which retrieve board metadata.

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 clear context that this tool lists sprints for a board, implying the appropriate scenario for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like sprint_get for individual sprints, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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