Get sprint issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes the cross-field precondition for 'active'/'next', which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, default maxResults, or what happens on an invalid sprint 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the parameter rule that governs correct invocation. Slightly lean to the point of being a fragment ('Issues in a sprint.') with no verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky parameter but omits return shape, default paging, and the meaning of jql/site in this context. Adequate to call correctly, thin for choosing correctly.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates for the most important gap by enumerating accepted values for `sprint` (id, name, 'active', 'next') and the dependency that the last two impose on boardId/projectKey – a cross-parameter rule the schema cannot express. It still leaves maxResults, boardId, and projectKey semantics to the schema.

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?

"Issues in a sprint" names the resource and the scoping dimension, and the sprint-argument sentence makes the retrieval intent concrete. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling jira_search_issues, which also returns issues, so the boundary has to be inferred.

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?

It does give one actionable rule: 'active'/'next' require boardId or projectKey. It never says when to prefer this over jira_search_issues or when a sprint lookup should be replaced by a JQL search, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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