sprint_forecast

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description explains the computation: average velocity from history, conversion of story points to hours, and a pessimistic estimate based on variance. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 25 words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential algorithmic logic but omits details about the return format (e.g., what fields the forecast result contains). This is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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 provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description reiterates some and adds the conversion concept, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: forecasting sprint completion date from backlog size and historical velocity. It explicitly mentions the verb 'forecast' and the resources 'backlog size' and 'historical velocity', distinguishing it from sibling tools like cocomo_estimate or pert_estimate that use different methodologies.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as cocomo_estimate, pert_estimate, and monte_carlo_schedule offer different estimation approaches, but the description does not explain scenarios where sprint_forecast is preferred.

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