get_sprint_capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or provides error handling. The description mentions what data is returned ('hours per day, days off') but doesn't describe the return format or structure.

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 concise - a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes specific details about what capacity data is retrieved. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is retrieved but not the return format. With no annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and may have authentication requirements. The description is minimally viable but could provide more context about the tool's behavior.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'team' interacts with 'iterationId' or provide examples of valid values. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 team member capacity for a sprint' with specific details about what capacity includes ('hours per day, days off'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team member capacity'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_current_sprint' or 'get_sprint_work_items' which might provide related sprint information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sprint_board' or 'get_iteration_work_items' that might provide overlapping or complementary sprint data. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for using this capacity tool.

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