get_sprints_from_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention default behavior when 'state' is omitted, pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The brief text adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence, making it concise. However, it omits important details that could be included without losing conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format. The description does not explain what a sprint object contains or the ordering, leaving a gap in completeness for a retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both parameters (boardId and state) fully (100% coverage). The description does not add extra semantic value beyond indicating retrieval of 'all' sprints, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all sprints from an Agile board'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sprint_issues which retrieve issues instead.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., board type, project scope). No explicit exclusion criteria or tips for effective use.

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