Get Sprint Issues

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, making safety clear. The description adds pagination (start_at, limit) and field customization details but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., if closed issues are included). With annotations, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value.

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 structured Args/Returns format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses efficient language. Slightly more verbose than necessary (e.g., listing all args) but still clear.

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 (as indicated in context), the description adequately covers input parameters and return type. It lacks details on behavior like ordering or issue status inclusion, but for a list tool with pagination, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description repeats parameter info without adding new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 using 'Get jira issues from sprint.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_sprint_from_board and jira_search by specifying the resource (sprint issues).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. While the purpose implies using it for retrieving sprint issues, there is no guidance on alternatives like jira_search or jira_get_board_issues. Usage is implied but not clearly delineated.

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