get_sprint_cadence

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: a product with no cadence row still returns the weekly-Monday default flagged as not configured, which prevents the agent from misreading a default as explicit configuration. It does not state permissions or whether the read is side-effect free beyond the word 'Get'.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the substantive content (what fields are returned) is front-loaded ahead of the default-case caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return contents, and it lists the four reported attributes plus the fallback behavior, which is enough to decide whether the call is worth making. It stops short of naming the actual field keys or value formats, leaving slight ambiguity about the shape of the response.

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% for the single product_id parameter, which already documents it as 'The product whose cadence to read'. The description adds no format, type, or lookup-behavior detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a product's sprint rhythm') and then enumerates exactly what rhythm means: length in days, start weekday, carry-over of unfinished work, and unattended opens. This is unmistakably a read of cadence configuration, cleanly separable from the sibling set_sprint_cadence.

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 usage is implied rather than stated; there is no sentence telling the agent when to call this versus set_sprint_cadence or list_sprints, and no preconditions. The note about unconfigured products reporting a default is helpful context but is behavioral, not routing guidance.

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