jira_list_sprint_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scoping behavior (current active sprint for the project, all assignees) and implies a read-only operation, but it omits edge cases like 'no active sprint,' permission requirements, or return format. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral detail is minimal.

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, tightly worded sentence conveying the core action and its key differentiator ('regardless of assignee') without unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with two optional filters, the description adequately states what it does. However, it does not mention how the project is identified (no project parameter exists, so it likely relies on settings or context) nor the response structure. These gaps are minor for a straightforward list operation but reduce completeness.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (label and status) with examples, giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description does not reference these filters or add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all issues in the current active sprint for the project'). It also explicitly states 'regardless of assignee,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool jira_list_my_sprint_issues, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for project-wide sprint views but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like jira_list_my_sprint_issues. The phrase 'regardless of assignee' provides an implicit contrast, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use this when you need all issues, not just yours.'

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