upservice_list_sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a JSON list. No mention of pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness is provided.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose. However, the Args list largely duplicates information already present in the input schema, which could be considered redundant. Still, it is well-structured and brief.

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 readOnly, idempotent nature and the presence of an output schema (though minimal), the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, such as whether offset/limit provide a complete list or require multiple calls. Completeness is minimal but not inadequate.

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?

The input schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Page size (max 100)', 'Filter by sprint status(es)'). The description in the docstring summarizes these but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List sprints, optionally filtered by project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like upservice_get_sprint (single sprint) and upservice_create_sprint (creation).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upservice_get_sprint or other list tools. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparator information is given.

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