kaiten_list_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action and resource. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe pagination defaults, ordering, or what fields the returned sprints contain. The statement adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is structurally clean and efficient, though the terseness means it provides little informational value beyond the tool name.

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 definition is incomplete for a tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not specify the scope of sprints returned, pagination behavior, or how the active filter interacts with the listing. Given the large sibling context, this lacks the contextual detail an agent needs to call it confidently.

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%, with limit, active, and offset each documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides sufficient detail for the agent to understand the parameters.

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 and resource, 'List Kaiten sprints,' which clearly distinguishes it from sprint mutations (create/update/delete) and from kaiten_get_sprint. However, it omits scope details such as whether this lists sprints across all spaces or for a specific project/board, so it does not fully differentiate itself from other list_ tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention kaiten_get_sprint for retrieving a single sprint, nor does it suggest any prerequisites or context where listing sprints is appropriate. In a sibling set of over 200 tools, the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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