gitea_create_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a milestone but omits behavioral traits such as whether dry_run previews effects, what authentication is needed, or any side effects. The parameter 'dry_run' with default true hints at a preview mode, but this is not disclosed in the description.

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 sentence, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. While front-loaded with the core action, it lacks details about parameters, usage, and behavior, which are necessary for a functional tool.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description needs to explain the purpose and interactions of these parameters to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The current one-sentence description is incomplete, leaving the agent to guess how to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'state', 'title', 'due_on', 'dry_run', 'description', or 'dotenv_path'. Without any parameter context, the agent cannot understand how to set each field meaningfully.

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 identifies the action as 'Plan or create a Gitea milestone used as a sprint for the private workboard,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gitea_create_work_item and gitea_list_sprint_tasks by noting the 'sprint' and 'private workboard' context. However, the phrase 'Plan or create' is ambiguous about whether it performs one or both actions.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for creation, or compare it to related tools like gitea_create_work_item or gitea_list_sprint_tasks. Usage is only implicitly conveyed as 'for the private workboard.'

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