get_sprint

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful scoping fact — the sprint is resolved within the current project, explaining why no project parameter exists — but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or belongs to another project.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though there is also very little content to structure.

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 with a single self-explanatory identifier parameter this is close to the minimum an agent needs. The remaining gaps (not-found behavior, ID provenance) are minor for a one-parameter 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 carries the burden for the single parameter, and it only partially does: 'current project' clarifies that no project identifier is needed, but it never explains what a sprint_id looks like or where to obtain one. The schema's pattern constraint does some of that work, keeping this at a minimum-viable level.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('获取...单个迭代的信息' — get a single sprint's information) and scopes it to the current project, which separates it from the sibling list_sprints by cardinality. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase '单个迭代' (single sprint) hints that this is the detail-lookup counterpart to list_sprints, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer the list-vs-get routing from the sibling names alone.

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