get_sprint_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of publish=true writing to Confluence and the returned fields. However, it omits details on authentication, error behavior, pagination, or the consequences of publishing (e.g., overwrite vs create new page), leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core functionality and adds the publish caveat prominently, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete. It covers the filtering and publish aspects but leaves the Confluence-related parameters unexplained, making it hard for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with all necessary details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies statuses, status_categories, and publish, but fails to explain the remaining 7 parameters (e.g., space_key, page_title, project_key, table_style, parent_page_id, include_confluence_storage), which is a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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 returns issues in a sprint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sprints (which lists sprints) and publish_confluence_page (which publishes pages). It also mentions the optional filtering and publishing side-effect, giving a specific verb+resource description.

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: to get issues in a sprint with optional filtering by status or status category, and to optionally publish to Confluence via publish=true. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_refinement_readiness_report or publish_confluence_page.

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