listar_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the visibility filter and sorting order, which are non-obvious behavioral details. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the verb 'Lista' strongly implies it.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, scope, and order without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what is listed, which items are included, and how they are ordered. No additional context is necessary for selection or invocation.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('sprints'), adds a meaningful scope ('visíveis'), and specifies ordering ('da mais recente para a mais antiga'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_projetos and listar_demandas_ativas.

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 purpose implies use when listing sprints, and the ordering/visibility details add context, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It relies on the tool's name and obvious purpose.

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