List sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: completed sprints are excluded by default and only returned on request, and results carry dates and goal — which matters since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the default-scope qualifier immediately after. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and the description covering default filtering and return content, this is nearly complete. Minor gap: nothing about result volume or ordering if a project has many sprints.

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 50%: `project` is documented in the schema while `include_completed` has no description there. The description's clause about completed sprints 'on request' effectively explains that flag, compensating for the gap rather than repeating the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list sprints of a project) plus the exact scope returned: planned and active by default, completed on request, including dates and goal. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_projects or move_to_sprint without inspecting schemas.

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 phrase 'completed ones on request' implies how to widen the default scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to guidance or named alternative. The connection to list_projects for obtaining a project key lives only in the schema, not the description.

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