List sprints

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

Annotations already communicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the shape of results (id, name, state, goal, dates), the single-page-per-call behavior, and the pagination continuation contract. It also warns about a meaningful edge case (Kanban boards have no sprints).

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 tightly packed sentences deliver purpose, field list, filter semantics, cross-tool context, a caveat, and pagination guidance with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: output fields, filter options, integration with dependent tools, board-type limitation, and pagination. No critical operational detail is missing even without an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning to the state parameter by explaining which state corresponds to 'sprint in flight' and 'ones planned', and it clarifies the startAt parameter's role in pagination by referencing paging.nextStartAt. This is useful semantic enrichment beyond the schema's plain descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists a board's sprints', and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling sprint tools by noting that the sprint id is consumed by jira_get_sprint_issues and jira_move_to_sprint, which are separate operations.

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 actionable context for when to call this tool and how to refine calls: state filtering with 'active' and 'future' semantics, the caveat that Kanban boards have no sprints, and precise pagination instructions ('when paging.partial is true, call again with startAt = paging.nextStartAt'). This goes beyond generic selection guidance.

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