List Sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about non-destructiveness, side effects, authentication, or scoping (e.g., current project vs all projects). The description adds minimal value beyond the title.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. It does not waste words, but it largely repeats the title 'List Sprints', adding only 'all' and 'from Panel Todo Pro'. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though not exceptionally informative.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so return values are likely covered. However, the description lacks context about whether sprints are scoped to the current project or across all projects, especially given sibling tools like switchProject. This ambiguity reduces completeness.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'status' with an enum and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and resource ('sprints'), with 'all' indicating scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getSprint (which retrieves a single sprint) and createSprint/updateSprint/deleteSprint (which modify). However, it omits the optional status filter, which is a minor gap.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to view all sprints' or 'use getSprint for a specific sprint'. The description simply states the action without context on selection criteria.

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