audit_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Premium license requirement, which is a meaningful access constraint, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it mutates any data, or what its side effects are.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the license requirement. It has minor redundancy in repeating the Premium status, and 'Enterprise-grade' is promotional filler, but overall it is efficient and well structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, and the description covers its general analytical purpose and license prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return behavior, read-only status, and sibling differentiation, leaving clear gaps for an agent.

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% for the single projectKey parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: auditing a Scrum sprint, predicting success, and analyzing velocity, story points, and risks. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_project tool, leaving the agent to infer the sprint-vs-project scope difference.

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 a prerequisite (requires an activated Premium license) and implies usage for sprint auditing, but it does not say when to choose this tool over audit_project or when not to use it. Guidance is present but minimal and does not resolve the sibling ambiguity.

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