get_sprint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the response bundles sprint metadata, progress metrics, and tasks, but says nothing about read-only safety, authorization needs, error behavior for unknown ids, or whether task lists are paginated/truncated.

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?

A single short phrase with no padding. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it reads as a noun fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens immediate comprehension.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the returned data (what 'progress' means, whether tasks are full objects) and confirm read-only behavior. As written, an agent knows only the broad categories of the response.

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 100% with the 'id' parameter documented as 'sprint id such as S-001'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 fragment 'Sprint details, progress, and its tasks' names the resource and roughly what it returns, but gives no verb (retrieve/fetch) and no scope distinction from siblings like list_sprints or board_summary. An agent can guess it's a read of a single sprint, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 indication of when to call this versus list_sprints (enumerate sprints) or board_summary (aggregate view). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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