jira_get_active_sprint

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 only states what is returned, but does not mention read-only semantics, error behavior, or what happens if no active sprint exists. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 a single sentence, directly stating the action and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple getter with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no active sprint) and does not specify the exact response format, leaving some 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?

The schema already describes boardId as 'The ID of the JIRA board' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gets the currently active sprint for a specific board, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_list_sprints by focusing on the active sprint and explicitly listing return fields (ID, name, dates, goal).

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 implies usage when the active sprint is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It is clear from context, but lacks direct guidance such as 'use jira_list_sprints to see all sprints'.

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