list_sprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, error handling, or whether only active sprints are listed. For a read operation, more context would be helpful.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or potential errors, which would be useful for an AI agent.

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% (the only parameter 'project_id' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists sprints for a project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., all or active sprints) compared to high-caliber examples.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. While it is the only sprint-listing tool among siblings, there are related tools like create_sprint or complete_sprint, but no differentiation is provided.

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