complete_sprint

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

The description discloses the main behavior and optional rollover, but lacks details on what 'complete' entails (e.g., archiving, status changes) and the fate of issues not rolled over. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose and optional behavior.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential action and rollover option. It is fairly complete but could benefit from elaborating on outcomes, such as the final state of the sprint and issues.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about sprint activation and rollover, but does not significantly enhance individual parameter semantics beyond 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 'Complete an active sprint' and the optional behavior 'roll over incomplete issues', specifying the resource (sprint) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_sprint, create_sprint, delete_sprint, and update_sprint.

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 implies the tool is used for completing an active sprint but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used, leaving guidance incomplete.

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