List Sprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds transparency about ordering (newest first) and return fields (id, name, dates, status, snapshot if completed), which is helpful beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then specifying ordering and return fields. Every sentence provides valuable information with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description lists the key return fields. It is complete enough for a simple list tool, though it could mention if there are pagination limits or default count. Overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra context is needed.

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), resource (sprints), scope (on a board, newest first), and expected return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_active_sprint and list_boards by specifying 'all sprints' and 'on a board'.

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 when to use this tool (to list all sprints) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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