Get Sprint Issues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds basic context (returns JSON with pagination info) but lacks details on behavior (e.g., rate limits, required permissions). It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter and return information. However, the parameter list largely duplicates the schema, which could be streamlined.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It could mention that sprint_id must come from jira_get_sprints_from_board, but overall it is complete enough for a read tool.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description repeats parameter names but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves issues from a sprint with 'Get jira issues from sprint.' It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_board_issues and jira_get_sprints_from_board, though it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'belonging to a specific 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_search or jira_get_board_issues. The description does not provide context on prerequisites (e.g., need a valid sprint_id) or when not to use it.

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