read_iterations

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: sorting order (newest first), the meaning of currentOnly, and the scope behavior when team/project are absent. This is useful and consistent with the annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The most important scoping distinction is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence adds semantic value.

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 read-only tool with four optional parameters, this description covers the key invocation scenarios and ordering semantics. It does not describe the return value shape, but there is no output schema and the schema's limit description already covers truncation. The only minor gap is behavior when both team and project are supplied, which is left ambiguous.

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 only 25%, so the description carries most of the parameter meaning. It clarifies team, project, and currentOnly semantics and the interaction between them. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema itself documents its default, max, and truncated behavior, so the gap is minor.

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 resource (team/project iterations/sprints), explains the core variants (team, project, or all teams without a selector), and orders results newest first. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_releases or read_projects without needing to inspect the schema.

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 description gives clear context: pass a team for team iterations, a project for project iterations, and currentOnly to get running iterations. It also states the fallback behavior when neither team nor project is given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage conditions are clear enough.

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