scrum_sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('from new to old'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, result scope, or filtering behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 text is very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified: it conveys a resource and ordering but omits the actual operation. This is economy at the expense of clarity, not well-structured conciseness.

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?

With only two parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the tool is relatively simple. However, the ambiguous purpose and lack of sibling differentiation leave gaps that a few additional words about listing sprints versus backlog or board would easily fill.

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%: group_id is explained as 'ID проекта, группы или скрама (из projects_list)' and status has enum descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so it neither improves nor harms the schema's baseline.

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 is a noun phrase ('Scrum sprints, from new to old') with no explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', so the agent must infer the action from the tool name. It identifies a resource but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like scrum_backlog or sprint_board.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scrum_backlog, sprint_board, or tasks_list. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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