get_sprint_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope of returned data (name, dates, goals, and all issues), which is the key behavioral trait of a getter. However, it does not address error behavior for invalid sprint IDs, whether 'all issues' includes sub-tasks or only top-level issues, or how issues are represented in the response.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the relevant content fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 1-parameter getter, the description covers the essentials, but it lacks any differentiation from sprint-related siblings (list_sprints_for_board, get_my_current_sprint_issues) and, with no output schema present, does not help the agent anticipate the response shape. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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% — sprintId already has a clear description ('The ID of the sprint to retrieve'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('comprehensive details about a specific sprint'), and enumerates the content returned: name, start/end dates, goals, and all included issues. It is clearly distinct from listing-oriented siblings like list_sprints_for_board, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the phrase 'a specific sprint' combined with the sprintId parameter suggests this tool is for retrieving detail on one known sprint versus listing sprints. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives like list_sprints_for_board or get_my_current_sprint_issues, leaving routing to inference.

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