jira_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that `full: true` is accepted only on read actions and rejected on mutations, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., deletion consequences), authorization requirements, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into a clear action list. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Minor deduction for slight redundancy with schema.

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 tool with 20 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description covers all actions and key parameters adequately. It could mention error handling or idempotency, but overall it is comprehensive.

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 only 5% schema description coverage, the description compensates by detailing parameter usage per action. However, it does not fully clarify every parameter (e.g., `rankBeforeIssue`, `rankAfterIssue` lack detailed semantics). The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the partial compensation.

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 explicitly states 'Manage Jira sprints: list/get/create/update/delete, list sprint issues, and move issues in or out.' This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_board.

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 provides action-specific parameter requirements, but does not offer comparative guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like jira_issue or jira_board. The action list implies scope, but lacks explicit when-to/not-to-use instructions.

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