get_sprint_report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds context such as configuration requirements, the behavior of extracting PR links from descriptions and comments, and a latency warning for comment fetching, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by return value details, requirements, and parameter explanations. It uses a clear Args section with no unnecessary verbiage.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and performance. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even though it doesn't cover error cases in detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'team' filters by Component/Team label and requires specific config, and 'include_pr_links' controls PR link extraction with a default of true and performance implications. This compensates entirely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Generate a structured sprint status report,' clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It then details the report's contents (grouped by assignee, status summary, at-risk flags, unassigned task warnings, optional PR links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sprint_tasks and get_current_sprint.

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 describing the report and its filtering options, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool. It does state prerequisites (DEVELOPMENT_SPACE_ID, SPRINTS_FOLDER_ID) and that team filtering requires CLICKUP_TEAM_LABELS, providing clear context for invocation.

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