jira_list_my_sprint_issues

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the filtering constraints (current active sprint, current user) and implies a read-only listing, but does not disclose behavior when no active sprint exists, potential errors, or whether the result is sorted or paginated. It does add some context beyond the tool 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasteful words or 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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly identifies the result set and the implicit filters. It does not specify the shape of the returned issues, but this is not critical for a basic list tool. The presence of jira_list_sprint_issues as a sibling suggests a potential need to clarify differences, but the description already implies the 'my' scoping.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description implicitly explains why—it operates on implicit context (current user and active sprint). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, satisfying the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 action ('List all issues') and the specific scope ('current active sprint assigned to the current user'). It distinguishes from siblings like jira_list_sprint_issues by the 'my' qualifier and the user assignment filter.

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 conveys a clear use case—retrieving personal issues in the active sprint—but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus similar alternatives like jira_list_sprint_issues or jira_fetch_issue. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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