sprrint_tasks_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains allowed values for assigned, due, and sprint, which is a start, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether archived or completed tasks are included, whether authentication is needed, or what the response contains. The terse format is closer to parameter docs than behavior disclosure.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by compact filter hints. Every phrase attempts to carry meaning. The main issue is that brevity cuts into clarity (the 'free' note is unclear), but as a conciseness score rather than completeness, it earns a 4.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent has insufficent context. The description explains three filter value sets but omits q and project entirely, never explains the response format, and does not state the default scope of the list. This is a meaningful gap for a tool an AI agent will call with no structured fallback.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'assigned is me|any|username' provides enum-like values, 'due is any|overdue|soon|later' gives valid options, and 'sprint can be a slug or free' hints at format. But q and project are left completely unexplained, and 'free' is ambiguous (free text vs the word 'free'). The description adds value for only 3 of 5 parameters and does so unevenly.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'List tasks on a project.' The named filters (assigned, due, sprint) help distinguish it from single-task tools like sprrint_tasks_get or create/update/comment tools. However, it does not clarifiy whether the list is scoped to a single project or all projects when project is omitted, and the sibling search tool is not differentiated.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies it is for listing tasks with filters, but it does not contrast with sprrint_search (likely the alternative for queries) or sprrint_tasks_get. It also does not state prerequisites like whether a project is required or what happens without one.

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