taiga_list_sprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic read operation. It says nothing about pagination, whether closed/completed sprints are returned, ordering, or what permissions are needed to list sprints in a project.

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?

One short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the space saved is not reinvested in any needed detail.

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 trivial one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should still cover return shape, pagination, and what 'all' includes. None of that is present, leaving an agent to discover behavior by calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. Its phrase 'for a project' weakly implies project_id identifies a project, but it never specifies whether the integer is a numeric project ID, and no format or constraint is given.

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 verb (list) and resource (sprints/milestones) scoped to a project, which lets an agent separate it from taiga_get_sprint or taiga_create_sprint by verb alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state scope restrictions (open vs. closed sprints), so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., taiga_get_sprint for a single sprint, or filtering options). The only hint is 'for a project', which is inferable from the required parameter rather than stated as guidance.

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