list_sprints

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that unavailable permissions and unsupported routes are surfaced explicitly, which is useful error-handling context, but says nothing about pagination behavior for a tool with multiple pagination params.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and the deprecation caveat front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter complexity.

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 explained. The deprecation note is valuable, but for a seven-parameter tool with nested offset objects and only 43% schema coverage, the description is thin on how to drive filtering and paging.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters and does not. It never mentions limit, active, detail, or offset semantics, leaving the agent to infer filtering and paging behavior from the schema alone.

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+resource ('Read sprints') and flags that it is a deprecated Kaiten route. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_sprint, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to list or fetch a single sprint.

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 versus get_sprint or any other sibling. The only framing is that the route is deprecated, which hints at instability but not selection criteria or prerequisites.

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