jira_get_my_sprint_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering behavior, return fields (keys, summaries, statuses, priorities), default sort order, and the ability to customize fields. It does not mention pagination behavior or error cases, but the schema covers maxResults and the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filter, return values, sorting, and customization. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information or fluff.

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 read tool with clear schema and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, filter, returned fields, sorting, and field customization. It does not mention how to obtain sprintId, but sibling tools like jira_get_active_sprint and jira_list_sprints cover that, and the schema makes sprintId required. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the fields parameter's purpose and the default field set, but it does not add meaning to sprintId or maxResults beyond their schema descriptions.

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 issues assigned to the current user in a specific sprint, with the filter 'assignee = currentUser()' explicitly stated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_sprint_issues, which likely returns all issues in a sprint.

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 clear context that this is for the current user's issues in a sprint, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'currentUser()' filter and mention of specific fields make the use case unambiguous.

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