list_sprints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not reveal important behaviors such as whether all sprints are returned, caching implications (despite a use_cache parameter), response format default, or any limitations. This falls short of providing meaningful transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that clearly states the core operation. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it may be too brief to fully support the tool's moderately complex parameter set.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details such as what constitutes a 'sprint', whether the list is filtered by state, or how to leverage optional parameters. For a listing tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it merely states the overall function. Parameters like fields, use_cache, and output_format are documented in the schema, so the description provides no extra value here.

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 'List sprints of a board' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool lists sprints associated with a board. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_boards and create_sprint by focusing on sprints, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 versus alternatives. The description offers only a terse purpose, lacking any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or complementary/exclusionary tools. Siblings like get_board or list_boards are not referenced.

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