taiga_get_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the response includes all stories, implying a potentially large payload, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for an unknown sprint_id, permission requirements, or whether pagination applies to the embedded stories.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most decision-relevant fact (that stories are included) is stated up front. It is arguably too terse for a 0%-coverage schema, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the response (sprint details plus stories). It stops short of explaining the required identifier or failure modes, which leaves a meaningful gap given there are no annotations or schema descriptions to fall back on.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds nothing about sprint_id — no indication of where to obtain it (e.g., from taiga_list_sprints) or whether it is the numeric sprint ID versus a slug or ref. The description neither names nor explains the one input the agent must supply.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('sprint details') and adds that the response embeds all stories in the sprint, which is genuinely useful scope information. It does not explicitly contrast itself with taiga_list_sprints or taiga_get_user_story, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than taiga_list_sprints (to enumerate sprints) or taiga_get_user_story (to fetch a story individually). No prerequisites, no mention of needing a valid sprint_id obtained elsewhere, and no exclusions.

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