Get sprint issues

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/open-world annotations, the description discloses the flattening behavior, the API quirk that omitting fields requests every field, the pagination contract, and a prompt-injection caution to treat issue text as data. This goes well beyond what annotations already provide and contains no contradiction.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences progress from what the tool returns, to how to shape the request, to safety, to pagination. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

All 6 parameters are schema-documented, and the description covers default fields, JQL narrowing, output flattening, prompt-injection safety, and pagination. It does not spell out the full response container structure, but that is partly delegated to the referenced jira_search output shape; still, with no output schema, a bit more explicit return-structure detail would make it fully 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?

The input schema already covers every parameter, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the fields and jql guidance and ties startAt to paging.nextStartAt, but does not add meaning that the schema descriptions do not already convey.

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 opens with "Lists the issues in one sprint," which names the action, resource, and scope in a single clause. The added "flattened exactly like jira_search" clarifies the output style and helps distinguish this sprint-level listing from single-issue or cross-search siblings.

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?

It gives clear operational context: request specific fields to avoid the 'every field' default, narrow results with JQL, and page by calling again when paging.partial is true. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one, but the "one sprint" scope plus these instructions make the intended usage clear.

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