List Scrum Estimates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it disclose error behavior or authorization needs. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some behavior implicit.

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 with no filler or repetition. Every word adds value, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It states exactly what is returned. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning that this is the canonical source of allowed values for estimate-related workflows, but nothing critical is missing.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than input details.

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 ('Return') and names a precise resource ('allowed Scrum poker estimate values'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanban_set_estimate and kanban_get_metrics, which have different purposes.

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 purpose implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the set of allowed Scrum estimates, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not state, for example, that it should be used to validate estimates before calling kanban_set_estimate.

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