sprint_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns orientation and that the data_dir is worktree-scoped and uncommitted, but it does not disclose side effects, safety, permissions, or what happens to the data. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that likely initiates a sprint environment.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every phrase adds value: the action, the specific inputs, and the return type. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

This tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only a minimal overview. It does not explain what 'orientation' means, the full workflow, prerequisites, or side effects. For a tool that creates a sprint, this is not enough context to fully understand its behavior and requirements.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for two of four parameters (git_dir and data_dir). The required 'goal' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. context_notes is also omitted. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, especially for the most critical required parameter.

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: 'Start a sprint' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sprint_resume and sprint_close by focusing on the 'new' action. The additional detail about explicit git_dir and worktree-scoped data_dir provides specificity beyond a generic start.

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: use this tool to start a sprint, especially when you have an explicit git_dir and a worktree-scoped, uncommitted data_dir. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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