subsprint_new

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation ('Create'), but lacks any details about side effects, dependencies handling, required permissions, or what the response contains. The sole behavior stated is the creation act itself, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's operational footprint.

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, efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could benefit from structured detail. It earns a 4 for brevity, but not a 5 because it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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's complexity (nested gates, multiple parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to mention return values, field semantics, or the optional dependencies parameter. A creation tool of this type typically needs at least minimal context about what constitutes a valid subsprint, which is absent.

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 lists 'description, goals, gates' by name, but provides no semantic meaning beyond the names. The 'dependencies' parameter is omitted entirely, and the nested structure of 'gates' (kind/spec/cwd) is not explained, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly populate the schema.

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 action: 'Create a subsprint', with a specific resource and the key fields listed in parentheses. It is distinguishable from sibling 'sprint_new' by the name and the explicit 'subsprint' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like sprint_new or subsprint_get. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Contextually, it is implied for creating subsprints, but the description itself offers no such direction.

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