Get Sprints from Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it does not mention pagination behavior (start_at/limit), default page size, or result truncation, which are the non-obvious behaviors for a list endpoint.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter meanings need not be repeated; the tool is also simple (4 params, 1 required). The remaining gap is routing guidance — nothing tells the agent when this list endpoint is the right choice — which keeps it at minimum viable.

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 all four parameters (board_id, state, start_at, limit) are already documented with examples and bounds. The description only echoes the 'state' filter and adds no format, valid-value, or interaction semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get jira sprints from board') plus a filter dimension ('by state'), so an agent can tell it is a read/list tool for sprints under a board. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as jira_get_sprint_issues or jira_get_agile_boards, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 phrase 'by state' implies optional filtering but never says when to call this versus jira_get_agile_boards (to discover board ids) or jira_get_sprint_issues (to get issues within a sprint). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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