jira_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., data loss on delete), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The raw API response hint is only in the schema, not the description.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It efficiently lists actions but could be structured with bullet points for clarity. Still, it is not overly verbose.

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 has 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or action-specific details that are present in the schema's description but omitted here.

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 description does not explain any of the 20 parameters. Schema description coverage is only 5%, so the description should compensate but fails entirely. The only parameter implied is 'action' through the list, but no details.

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 manages Jira sprints and enumerates specific actions (list/get/create/update/delete, list issues, move issues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_board by focusing on sprints. However, the verb 'manage' is slightly broad, though the list clarifies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., jira_issue for issue-specific operations). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or alternatives.

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