list_project_sprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral details: the limit is capped at a server-defined maximum, pagination uses next_offset, and the 'total' field is misleading (only counts the current page and may stop early). This is significant transparency beyond the schema, helping the agent manage pagination and interpret results correctly.

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 concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides essential pagination details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: pagination, limit cap, and total's meaning. It also clarifies the project identifier format. It could be more complete by describing the returned sprint object structure or mentioning any required permissions, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It implies meaning for limit (capped, used for pagination) and offset (passed via next_offset), but it does not explicitly define them or explain that limit is the page size and offset is the starting index. The 'project' parameter is clarified as 'id or identifier' in the first sentence. Overall, it adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 lists Backlogs sprints for a project by id or identifier. It uses a specific verb, object, and scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sprints (which likely lists all sprints) and get_sprint (which fetches a single sprint). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for a specific project, identified by id or identifier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_sprints, but the project scoping is implicit. It also gives practical usage guidance on pagination, explaining how to page through results. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it doesn't fully guide selection among siblings.

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