get_sprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves sprints but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage hint. It's efficient with zero waste, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity). Overall, it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, return values, or error cases. For a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, it meets the bare minimum but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (ancestor_part_id and state). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'part ID' and 'state', but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('active or planned sprints'), and specifies the target ('for a given part ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_part' or 'get_work' by focusing on sprints. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sprint-related tools not in the sibling list, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 context ('for an issue based on its part'), suggesting this is for retrieving sprints related to parts/issues. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'search' or other get tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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