Get Sprints from Board

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by starting with 'Get.' It adds value by stating the return format ('JSON string representing a list of sprint objects') and parameter defaults, going beyond the 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, using a clear docstring format with a one-line summary followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 description covers all parameters and the return type. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. However, it could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., board existence) for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the state parameter by listing valid values and noting that None returns all sprints. It also clarifies start_at as 'Starting index' and limit as 'Maximum results,' matching schema but providing context.

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 'Get jira sprints from board by state,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_sprint_issues and jira_get_agile_boards by focusing on sprints from a board with optional state filtering.

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 usage by listing parameters and defaults, such as state='active' and limit=10, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_sprint_issues or jira_get_agile_boards. It lacks guidance on 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.