list_sprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description is minimal but does communicate that it lists sprints, implying a read operation. However, no details on pagination, required authentication, or behavior with no sprints, which would be helpful for a list operation.

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?

One short sentence, efficient. But the '[Project Management]' prefix adds noise without information, and the description doesn't mention the parameters that follow. It's terse but not deeply structured.

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 list tool with a schema covering all parameters, the description is adequate but lacks richness. It doesn't mention result sorting, default page size, or any rate limits, but the schema covers the core parameters. Output format is not specified, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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 documents all parameters. However, the description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema. The description is identical to the schema's 'id' description, offering no extra value for parameters like 'organizationId' or the 'status' filter enum values. For a 5-parameter tool, this is a lost opportunity.

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 states 'List sprints in a project' – clear verb+resource, scoped to a project. However, the category tag '[Project Management]' doesn't add value, and the description doesn't contrast with siblings like get_sprint, though the scope is generally clear.

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 implies usage: list sprints within a project. But there's no explicit 'when to use' versus alternatives like get_sprint, and no mention of when filtering by status is appropriate. It's implied by the tool's name and schema fields, but not explicitly stated.

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