sprrint_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' and 'Filter' clearly signal a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, the description does not disclose result shape, pagination, default behavior with no filters, or any operational caveats, so transparency is adequate but limited.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the filter capabilities are listed in a compact, scannable way. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It covers the main purpose and filter dimensions but does not explain how filters combine, what the Now board actually returns, the due-window format, or the identifier format for project/sprint. This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves moderate gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by mapping 'sprint slug' to sprint, 'assigned username' to assigned, 'due window' to due, and 'search text' to q. The project parameter is only implied by 'for a project,' and formats or accepted values are not described, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 action and resource: 'Show the Now board for a project.' It also lists the filtering dimensions, which makes the tool's scope reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sprrint_tasks_list or sprrint_search, so it stops short of full 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 implies when to use it—whenever a user wants the Now board for a project or wants to filter sprint items by assignee, due window, sprint, or search text. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as sprrint_search or sprrint_tasks_list, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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