sprint_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action of 'binding this MCP session' but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether it detaches from a current sprint, overwrites session state, or requires specific preconditions. The description is limited to the basic action without stating consequences or reversibility.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the key distinction from sprint_new. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 tool modifies session binding, the description is incomplete. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., whether the sprint must be detached or closed), the effect on the current session's active sprint, or any safety considerations. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes the description the only source of operational context, and it falls short.

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 does mention both parameters and explains they are existing directories used for binding, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required (git_dir is required, data_dir is optional) nor does it explain the format or expected content of these directories.

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 states a specific verb ('Resume'), resource ('existing sprint'), and mechanism ('binding this MCP session to an existing git_dir and data_dir'). It also explicitly distinguishes from sprint_new by saying 'without creating a sprint', which is a direct sibling differentiation.

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 clearly indicates this is for resuming an existing sprint, implying it should be used when a sprint already exists rather than when creating a new one. The exclusion 'without creating a sprint' provides some guidance against using it for new sprints, though it does not explicitly name sprint_new or mention alternatives like sprint_detach.

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