List sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the default state filter is active+future — which is not in the schema, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ordering.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the two addressing modes front-loaded and the default filter appended as a separate clause.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, essentials like how results are shaped, whether pagination applies, and what happens when neither boardId nor projectKey is passed are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 25% (just 'site'), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines boardId as a board identifier, projectKey as a project's scrum boards, and specifies the default for the undocumented 'state' parameter. It stops short of clarifying mutual exclusivity or the 'all' vs 'active,future' enum distinction.

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?

States the resource (sprints) and the two distinct lookup modes (boardId for a single board, projectKey for a project's scrum boards). That distinguishes it from jira_get_boards and jira_get_sprint_issues, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(by boardId) or (by projectKey)' implies the two entry paths, but it never states that at least one of them must be supplied nor what happens if both or neither are given. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are offered.

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