Ops MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns ('current sprint name, date range, and time remaining'), mentions configurable defaults for parameters, and clarifies the scope (active sprint only). However, it doesn't address potential edge cases like what happens when no sprint is active or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns, related tools). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The 'USE THIS TOOL' section efficiently lists multiple query examples, and the parameter explanations are direct and informative.

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's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, return values, and relationship to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, which it appropriately avoids.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters ('project' and 'team') and indicating they have defaults from config. It provides meaningful context about when these parameters are needed, though it doesn't specify exact config sources or format requirements.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get the current sprint/iteration') and resources ('dates and summary'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the active sprint only, not historical or future sprints, and explicitly mentions get_sprint_work_items as a complementary tool for detailed sprint content.

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 explicit usage guidelines with a dedicated 'USE THIS TOOL' section listing specific user query examples ('what sprint are we in?', 'current iteration', etc.). It also clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus get_sprint_work_items for different types of sprint information.

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