Get Board Sprints

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains how to identify the currently running sprint ('status in_progress') and how the returned sprint id should be used downstream. This helps the agent understand the data semantics without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a useful status clarification and a concrete downstream instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: how to find the board, what the status field means, which fields are typically sufficient, and how to use the result. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the status semantics for the returned sprints and clarifying the practical use of the id field, which is more useful than the bare field names.

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 identifies a precise action and resource: 'Get all sprints' of 'a specific Yandex Tracker agile board.' It also clarifies that the running sprint is identifiable by status 'in_progress', which further distinguishes the tool's purpose from board-level tools like board_get or boards_get_all.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool—when sprint data for a specific board is needed—and explicitly connects the output to downstream issue creation/update tools: 'Use the returned sprint id to put an issue into a sprint with the issue_create or issue_update tools.' It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but no direct alternative for retrieving sprints appears among siblings.

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