sprint_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'bind this MCP session to an existing git_dir and data_dir' and that it does not create a sprint, but it does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 of 13 words, conveying the purpose and a key behavioral constraint. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain the effect on the session, prerequisites (the sprint must already exist), or what 'bind' means operationally. The agent would likely need additional 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds that git_dir and data_dir refer to existing directories, which provides some context, but it lacks details about format, purpose, or how they relate to an existing sprint. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 'Resume an existing sprint' with a specific verb 'Resume' and resource 'existing sprint', and explicitly contrasts with 'without creating a sprint', which distinguishes it from sprint_new. This provides a clear purpose and differentiation from sibling tools.

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 when you have an existing sprint and want to resume, but it does not explicitly list when to use it versus alternatives like sprint_new, sprint_list, or sprint_detach. The contrast 'without creating' helps, but more explicit guidance would improve selection.

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