get_current_sprint

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavior: auto-detection by date, per-session caching (with a stale-data risk), and configuration requirements. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and is not contradictory.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a behavior note, and a configuration note. Every sentence carries essential information without unnecessary elaboration. It is immediately scannable and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how it auto-detects, caching behavior, an alternative tool, and required configuration. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured, so the description is complete without over-explaining.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage). The description correctly focuses on the return value (list ID, name, date range) rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool. A baseline of 4 is justified.

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 sprint's info (list ID, name, date range).' This specifies the action (get), the resource (current sprint), and the exact output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sprint_tasks (tasks) and refresh_sprint_cache (cache refresh) by focusing on the sprint's metadata.

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 explicit usage context: 'Auto-detected by date' and 'Cached per session — use refresh_sprint_cache if the sprint rolled over.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when to invoke an alternative (refresh_sprint_cache). It also mentions configuration prerequisites, which are essential for successful use.

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