list_sprints_for_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It correctly signals a read/list operation and the state-filter behavior, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or clarify that 'all sprints' may require multiple pages given maxResults. This leaves a notable behavioral gap.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler and does not redundantly repeat schema details.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the filter options, and the intended use cases. The only gap is that 'List all sprints' is not qualified with the pagination behavior encoded in startAt and maxResults, though the schema supplies that information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the state enum values to the meaningful concepts of 'current' (active) and 'historical' (closed/future) sprints, and by reinforcing that boardId targets a specific Agile board.

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 ('List') and resource ('sprints for a specific Agile board'), and adds the state-filter dimension. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_sprint_details or list_agile_boards, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence provides concrete usage context: filter by active, closed, or future states to find current or historical sprints. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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