sprint_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'Re-check all gates' and 'write changelog', which are external actions, and 'close the sprint' which is inherently state-changing. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens to related data. It is a basic disclosure but lacks depth.

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 lists the key actions without fluff. It earns high marks for brevity and front-loading the core purpose.

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 has one optional parameter (coverage) with a non-trivial schema, but the description ignores it entirely. It also doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the complexity of a sprint-close operation again, this is a notable gap.

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 explain the 'coverage' parameter that appears in the schema. It does not mention it at all. The parameter is optional and has a specific structure, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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's purpose: 'Re-check all gates, write the canonical SemVer changelog, and close the sprint.' It specifies the verb (close) and resource (sprint), and the action sequence distinguishes it from siblings like sprint_resume or sprint_archive.

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 the tool is used to finalize a sprint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sprint_archive or sprint_new. It gives no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, so it only meets 'implied usage' at best.

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