jira_get_sprint_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what data is returned but does not state read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., heavy API usage). This is acceptable but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and clear outcome enumeration. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key output categories and comparison behavior. The rich schema compensates for parameter details, but the description could be slightly more explicit about the report's structure or configuration options.

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 every parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter syntax but does align report metrics with parameter groups (status categories, bug metrics, labels), which is mildly helpful. Baseline 3 applies.

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 generates a sprint report for retrospectives, listing specific output categories (issue counts, story points, bug metrics, label tracking) and the comparison with the previous sprint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_sprint_issues or jira_get_backlog_stats.

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 explicitly mentions 'for retrospectives', providing a clear use case. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool when a retrospective sprint report is needed.

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