get_velocity_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output (planned vs completed story points, average completion rate) and scope ('all past sprints'), but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or data limitations. It adds some value beyond the name but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific metrics. It contains no filler and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the primary source of information. It covers the key return values (planned/completed story points, average completion rate) and scope (past sprints). It could be slightly more explicit about how the average is computed or whether current sprint is included, but it is sufficiently complete for a parameterless sprint velocity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 tool retrieves sprint-over-sprint velocity, including planned vs completed story points and average completion rate. The verb 'get' and specific metrics make the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_team_workload_tool.

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 usage for historical sprint velocity analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It lacks comparative context with sibling tools.

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