List Sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 403 error tied to missing access to the company entities tree, the semantic meaning of an empty array, and the exact fields returned (id, title, active, dates, velocity) — all beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose with filter scoping, a brief domain definition of sprint, the empty-array interpretation gotcha, and a closing sentence packing return fields, the auth requirement, and the sibling routing. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: result shape (field names), error conditions (403), empty-result semantics, and the alternative for deeper detail. All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile, leaving no material gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, active, offset, and verbosity are each already documented with defaults, ranges, and meanings. The description only echoes the active filter and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'List company sprints' — and immediately notes the optional active-flag filter. It further distinguishes itself from kaiten_get_sprint by framing this as the list-level view versus the per-sprint detail view, and the sibling list contains no other sprint-list tool, so there is no ambiguity an agent could face.

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 explicitly routes to kaiten_get_sprint when the full per-sprint summary including cards is needed, naming the condition that selects the alternative. It also tells the agent how to interpret an empty result (not a broken access, just no sprints configured), which prevents a wrong downstream action after the call.

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