Get Sprint Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the response is LARGE at verbosity=max, each verbosity level's return shape, excludeDeletedCards filtering on condition=3, and concrete 404/403 failure modes. This tells the agent exactly what to expect in terms of payload size and errors.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: return composition, verbosity trade-off warning, deletion filter semantics, error codes, and ID provenance. Information-dense with no filler, though the density of the second sentence (verbosity guidance) is slightly high and could be split for readability. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers return composition, error conditions, parameter semantics, and where to get sprintId. The one notable gap is the 'raw' verbosity value, which is neither explained in the schema nor the description, leaving an agent unsure what it returns versus max.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse descriptions: it explains what min ('cards_count only'), normal ('brief {id,title,state} per card'), and max (cardUpdates + customProperties) actually return, explains excludeDeletedCards semantics (condition=3), and notes sprintId comes from kaiten_list_sprints. The only un-enriched value is 'raw', which the schema and description both leave undefined.

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 ('Get a full sprint summary') and enumerates exactly what is included: sprint metadata, cards, cardUpdates version history, and custom properties. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kaiten_list_sprints (listing sprints) and kaiten_get_card (a single card), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 explicit verbosity-selection guidance ('prefer min ... or normal ... unless you specifically need cardUpdates or customProperties'), which directly tells the agent how to trade off response size against detail. It also routes sprintId provenance to kaiten_list_sprints, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with card-list alternatives like kaiten_get_space_cards or kaiten_get_board_cards for retrieving cards in bulk.

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