kaiten_get_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes what the caller will receive: a sprint summary with cards, path data, and custom properties. It does not discuss failure cases or permissions, but for a simple read-by-ID tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 that captures both the purpose and the main return content. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple: one required integer parameter, one optional boolean, and no output schema. The description, combined with the complete schema documentation, gives an agent enough context to call it correctly and know what kind of result to expect. Minor gaps like error behavior or pagination are not critical for this use case.

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 the schema already explains both sprint_id and exclude_deleted_cards. The description does not add any extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but means no bonus credit is earned.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('sprint'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from listing, creating, updating, or deleting sprints. It also gives a brief sense of the returned payload, making the tool's function immediately recognizable.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies this tool is appropriate when a specific sprint ID is already known, rather than when listing sprints. However, it never explicitly names kaiten_list_sprints or kaiten_get_sprint-related alternatives, and it gives no guidance on when not to use this tool.

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