sprint_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data_dir is 'worktree-scoped, uncommitted', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not specify if the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing sprint data), what 'orientation' means, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the action and key parameters. Every part is relevant. However, it could be slightly restructured to include all parameters without losing brevity, and the phrase 'returns orientation' is vague but acceptable for conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides no explanation of return values (what 'orientation' contains), no details on side effects (e.g., impact on current sprint), and no usage context (e.g., typical workflow). The agent would lack critical information to use the tool correctly.

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 purpose of git_dir and data_dir (explicit, worktree-scoped, uncommitted), adding meaning beyond the schema. But it omits goal (required) and context_notes (optional entirely). The description covers only 2 of 4 parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool starts a sprint with specific parameters (git_dir, data_dir). The verb 'Start' and resource 'sprint' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sprint_archive or sprint_close by focusing on initiation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sprint_resume or subsprint_new, which could overlap in purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sprint_resume (for resuming an existing sprint) or subsprint_new (for creating sub-sprints). The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether a current sprint must be closed first, or what happens if one is already active.

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