jira_get_sprint_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default return fields and customization via the fields parameter, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (despite maxResults being in the schema), potential large result sets, or any limitations like whether 'all' truly means all or is capped. No side effects or auth requirements are mentioned, but for a read tool this is partially acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy with the schema while providing just enough overview.

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 straightforward read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, default return shape, and customization capability. It lacks explicit usage guidance and pagination nuances, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal value—only reiterating that the fields parameter allows customization. Since the schema already documents defaults and the customFields enum, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Get all issues in a specific sprint.' It also lists the default returned fields, distinguishing this from other sprint-related tools like jira_get_active_sprint or jira_get_sprint_report. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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 you need issues for a given sprint, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as jira_get_my_sprint_issues or jira_search_issues. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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