get_sprints

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the basic fetch. It does not mention permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether the board must exist; an agent learns only that this is a read of sprints, which it could already infer from the name.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the parameter list is terse with no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but every line carries information the schema lacks.

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, so return values need not be described, and the state filter is well covered. The gap is behavioral: with no annotations and no mention of permissions, pagination, or error conditions, the definition is adequate but not complete for an unannotated read tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does the important half: it enumerates the valid state values ('future', 'active', 'closed') and the all-states default, which the schema does not encode as an enum. The board_id entry is only a restatement ('Board ID'), leaving a small gap.

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 (Get) and resource (sprints) scoped to a board, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling such as get_boards or move_to_sprint, 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 only usage guidance is embedded in the state parameter note listing the accepted filter values and that the default returns all states. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other retrieval or sprint-mutation tools.

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