jira_list_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful behavior: return fields, sorting order, and pagination support. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors or permission requirements. This is a moderate disclosure level for a list operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences, and is front-loaded with the action verb. Every sentence contributes value without repetition. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary purpose, return fields, sorting, and pagination, which is decent for a list operation. However, it omits the important constraint that either boardId or projectKey is required (only implied in schema) and does not mention filtering by state. It also lacks any reference to sibling tools or error conditions, leaving the agent to infer some usage context.

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 each parameter is already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only high-level context about sorting and pagination, which does not materially enhance understanding of the individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the burden.

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 uses the clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'sprints for a board or project', which is unambiguous. It also names the return fields, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like jira_get_active_sprint or jira_get_sprint_report, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for a single sprint's details one should use jira_get_active_sprint or jira_get_sprint_report, nor does it highlight the either/or requirement for boardId and projectKey. The only implied usage is 'list sprints', which is too vague for effective tool selection.

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