Get iteration velocity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions configurable point field and completed states, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, what happens if no items match, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with five parameters and no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It states the core action and the key configurable aspects efficiently.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., what fields are returned), the meaning of 'delivered item' versus 'story-point totals', or default behavior when pointsField or completedStates are omitted. No examples or edge-case handling are provided.

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 description adds meaning to pointsField and completedStates by referring to 'configurable point field and completed states', clarifying their purpose. However, iterationId, project, and team are not addressed in the description beyond what the schema provides (team has a description, the others do not). Given the low schema coverage (20%), the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 calculates delivered item and story-point totals for a sprint, with configurable fields and states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iteration_work_items, which likely return individual items, and get_team_capacity, which focuses on capacity. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'iteration velocity' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for computing velocity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_iteration_work_items or get_team_capacity. No when-not conditions are provided, so the agent must infer from the action itself.

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