list_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose ordering (newest first) and that results carry real task counts and cadence. It omits operationally important behaviors: whether closed/completed sprints are included or filtered out, whether results are paginated or capped, and any permission constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and result shape, then follows with ownership semantics that genuinely clarify why a sprint spans multiple projects. Slightly wordy in the second sentence ('the product sets the rhythm and owns the lifecycle'), but nothing that misleads or buries the key fact.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and return contents. The notable gap is lifecycle scope – the existence of close_sprint among siblings makes it important to say whether closed sprints appear in the listing, and pagination/limits are unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself with a pointer to list_products; the description adds no further meaning about product_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List a product's sprints') plus ordering ('newest first') and returned content (task counts, cadence), which clearly separates it from the singular get_sprint and from product-level tools like list_products. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of top marks.

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 intent to enumerate sprints for a given product is implied, and the ownership model (product sets rhythm, projects add/remove work) helps frame the scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention of when get_sprint, get_sprint_cadence, or list_tasks would be preferable, and no stated prerequisite besides the id lookup hint.

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