list_sprints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose that results are paginated, which is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations, but it does not explain page-token lifetime, ordering, or what happens when the token expires.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 explained, but for a paginated list tool the description leaves out how iteration terminates and what 'current project' means operationally. The complexity is modest, yet the description still omits the pagination contract an agent must follow.

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 bears full responsibility for the two parameters, yet it only hints at pagination without explaining that next_token is the continuation token or what max_results controls. An agent must infer both from parameter names alone.

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 with scope: paginated listing of sprints for the current project. It is clearly distinguishable from get_sprint and create_sprint by the listing action, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_sprint for a single sprint, nor any prerequisite about how the 'current project' is resolved. The only implicit cue is the verb 'list'.

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