get_current_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'sprint name, dates, and path', which adds useful context about output format. However, it does not mention behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if no active sprint exists), or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Get the current active sprint/iteration for a team'), followed by output details in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and output format, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or full behavioral context. It's adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive for an agent to handle edge cases confidently.

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 has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'team' parameter well. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'default project team' means or provide examples). Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current active sprint/iteration for a team' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current active sprint/iteration'), and it distinguishes the resource from siblings like 'get_iterations' (which likely lists all sprints) or 'get_sprint_work_items' (which focuses on work items). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_sprint_board' or 'get_sprint_capacity', which might also relate to current sprints, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by specifying 'for a team', which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_iterations' (which might return all sprints) or 'get_sprint_work_items' (which might return items for a specific sprint). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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