sprint_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior: gate re-checking, changelog writing, closure, and the limited effect of force. It does not disclose failure behavior, side effects of closing, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible, which would matter for a state-changing tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the force qualifier is appended without bloating the description.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional coverage parameter, the description is not complete enough. An agent still cannot tell when or how to supply coverage, what constitutes a gate failure, or what happens if a gate fails without force.

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 semantics of force, but says nothing about the coverage parameter or its variants (path/format vs. not_applicable), which is a significant gap for a parameter with two distinct object shapes.

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 names a specific action ('close the sprint') and a concrete resource, plus distinct sub-behaviors: re-checking gates and writing the canonical SemVer changelog. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sprint_new, sprint_resume, sprint_archive, and changelog.

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 context of use is clear: this is the tool for finalizing a sprint by re-checking gates and producing a changelog. It also gives conditional guidance for the force flag ('force bypasses only executable gate failures'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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