list_sprints

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that state accepts specific values and comma-separated lists, but does not explain behavior around the optional board_id, pagination via limit, or any potential side effects. The 'on a board' phrasing may conflict with board_id being optional (default null).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on optional parameters and usage context, making it minimally viable but with noticeable gaps in board_id handling and when to use this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'state' parameter's allowed values and comma-separation, but does not add meaning for 'board_id' or 'limit'. Board_id's optionality and semantics (null meaning all boards?) are left ambiguous.

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 lists sprints on a board, with the specific purpose of picking sprint IDs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sprint_issues by focusing on sprint enumeration rather than issue retrieval.

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 'so you can pick sprint ids' implies usage as a precursor to other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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