project_sprint_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the report includes velocity, completion rate, and blocker stats, which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other potential traits like required authentication or rate limits, but given annotations, the bar is lower, and a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with 'Generate a sprint report with...' and has no unnecessary words. It could potentially be slightly more concise, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only for read-only behavior, the description is adequate but not complete. It lists the metrics included but does not specify the return format, pagination, or how the sprint parameter defaults work beyond what the schema says. It is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth.

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 input schema has complete descriptions for all three parameters (owner, projectNumber, sprint), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 generates a sprint report with specific metrics (velocity, completion rate, blocker stats). The verb 'Generate' and resource 'sprint report' are specific. The sibling includes project_backlog_report, which suggests a different focus, so the description effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_backlog_report. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The context signals show siblings with overlapping domains, but the description offers no help in choosing.

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