get_sprint

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds two pieces of genuinely new context: the route is deprecated, and nested sections are explicitly paged. The latter warns the agent that continuation offsets will be needed. It stops short of saying what deprecation means operationally (removal timeline, preferred replacement).

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 compact sentence with the deprecation caveat front-loaded. 'Explicitly paged nested sections' is slightly opaque phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. However, for a deprecated, nested, paged read endpoint the description omits the meaning of the detail enum, the behavior of exclude_deleted_cards, and any migration path away from the deprecated route.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, but it only alludes to the offset parameters via 'explicitly paged nested sections' and says nothing about the detail enum's summary/full distinction or exclude_deleted_cards. The most consequential parameter is left undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read sprint summary') and identifies the underlying route as a deprecated Kaiten endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_sprints, but the read-one-sprint scope is inferable from the name and description.

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 on when to use this tool versus list_sprints, and no explanation of when to choose detail='summary' vs detail='full'. The deprecation note hints that an alternative may exist but never names one or states the condition.

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