list_scrum_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. It does not mention pagination, default ordering, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only list tool.

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 concise single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential purpose and filtering capability. However, it could mention the return format (list of task objects) or default behavior (e.g., ordering), but these are not critical gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by story', which aligns with the story_sys_id parameter, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for any parameter. No extra semantic value is added.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'scrum tasks', and specifies an optional filter 'by story'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_stories (which lists stories, not tasks) and list_my_tasks (which is user-specific). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't explain that this tool is for scrum tasks specifically, as opposed to list_my_tasks or list_stories. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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